On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:45:45 -0500 > Josh Boyer <jwbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Alan Cox <a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote: >> > >> > [The fb maintainer appears to be absent at the moment]. >> > >> > This is needed to fix a pile of lockdep splats that now show up because >> > console_lock() >> > is being properly audited. Hugh Dickins and Sasha Levin have tested it and >> > both reports >> > all looks good. This is probably not the whole story - the entire fb layer >> > has locking >> > confusion problems that were previously hidden but it seems to get the >> > ones people hit >> > in testing. This hopefully explains a few of the weird fb hangs that have >> > been floating >> > around forever. >> > >> > From: Alan Cox <a...@linux.intel.com> >> > >> > Adjust the console layer to allow a take over call where the caller already >> > holds the locks. Make the fb layer lock in order. >> > >> > This s partly a band aid, the fb layer is terminally confused about the >> > locking rules it uses for its notifiers it seems. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <a...@linux.intel.com> >> >> Should this eventually get into the stable trees? > > Thats a question I'm not sure about at this point. I think the bug is > real but not caught by the lock checker in older trees but I've not > investigated.
So... this patch seems to still be twisting in the wind. It should probably be headed into 3.8 at this point, shouldn't it? josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
