Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:47:46PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 2013-06-06 09:23:13, Wang YanQing wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: > > > > Impact: > > > > 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console > > > > > > This is step backwards. > > > > What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in > > kernel > > than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't > > understand > > what is step backwards. > > "do_*" is internal api, "*" is external api. You sprinkle internal api > all over the place. > internal vs external? No, they only have one difference, callee vs caller hold the console lock. > > > > --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > > > +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > > > @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) > > > > > > > > /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ > > > > pci_vga_hose = hose; > > > > - take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > > > + console_lock(); > > > > + do_take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > > > + console_unlock(); > > > > } > > > > > > Original was better. > > > > Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I > > can't see the "BETTER", and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to > > unify the API. > > You replaced "calling exported function" with "calling > internal-sounding function and adding locking too". do_take_over_console is also exported by: EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(do_take_over_console) -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Thu 2013-06-06 09:23:13, Wang YanQing wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: > > > Impact: > > > 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console > > > > This is step backwards. > > What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in kernel > than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't > understand > what is step backwards. "do_*" is internal api, "*" is external api. You sprinkle internal api all over the place. > > > --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > > +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > > @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) > > > > > > /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ > > > pci_vga_hose = hose; > > > - take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > > + console_lock(); > > > + do_take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > > + console_unlock(); > > > } > > > > Original was better. > > Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I > can't see the "BETTER", and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to > unify the API. You replaced "calling exported function" with "calling internal-sounding function and adding locking too". Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Thu 2013-06-06 09:23:13, Wang YanQing wrote: On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: Impact: 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console This is step backwards. What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in kernel than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't understand what is step backwards. do_* is internal api, * is external api. You sprinkle internal api all over the place. --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ pci_vga_hose = hose; - take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_lock(); + do_take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_unlock(); } Original was better. Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I can't see the BETTER, and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to unify the API. You replaced calling exported function with calling internal-sounding function and adding locking too. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:47:46PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 2013-06-06 09:23:13, Wang YanQing wrote: On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: Impact: 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console This is step backwards. What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in kernel than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't understand what is step backwards. do_* is internal api, * is external api. You sprinkle internal api all over the place. internal vs external? No, they only have one difference, callee vs caller hold the console lock. --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ pci_vga_hose = hose; - take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_lock(); + do_take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_unlock(); } Original was better. Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I can't see the BETTER, and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to unify the API. You replaced calling exported function with calling internal-sounding function and adding locking too. do_take_over_console is also exported by: EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(do_take_over_console) -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: > > Impact: > > 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console > > This is step backwards. What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in kernel than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't understand what is step backwards. > > --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > > @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) > > > > /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ > > pci_vga_hose = hose; > > - take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > + console_lock(); > > + do_take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > > + console_unlock(); > > } > > Original was better. Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I can't see the "BETTER", and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to unify the API. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 10:13:18PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: Impact: 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console This is step backwards. What is step backwards? do_take_over_console appear MUCH MUCH later in kernel than take_over_console, do_take_over_console is the new API, I can't understand what is step backwards. --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ pci_vga_hose = hose; - take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_lock(); + do_take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_unlock(); } Original was better. Except reduce some console_lock/unlock scatter scattered in kernel, I can't see the BETTER, and it is not a BIG problem for the benefit to unify the API. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: > Impact: > 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console This is step backwards. > --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c > @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) > > /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ > pci_vga_hose = hose; > - take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > + console_lock(); > + do_take_over_console(_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); > + console_unlock(); > } Original was better. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue 2013-05-21 13:15:12, Wang YanQing wrote: Impact: 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console This is step backwards. --- a/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c +++ b/arch/alpha/kernel/console.c @@ -61,7 +61,9 @@ locate_and_init_vga(void *(*sel_func)(void *, void *)) /* Set the VGA hose and init the new console. */ pci_vga_hose = hose; - take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_lock(); + do_take_over_console(vga_con, 0, MAX_NR_CONSOLES-1, 1); + console_unlock(); } Original was better. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 12:29 PM, Wang YanQing wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. The workaround I'm referring to is commit 50e244cc793 which exposed do_take_over_console() as an interface to band aid the lock problems. I'm ok with take_over_console() being a lock wrapper around do_take_over_console(), if you are trying to preserve your other changes. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: > > Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() > > over many more source files than the single-use case of > > do_take_over_console(). > > > The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is > > exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. > > This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock > internal, > but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite > do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. > > But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface > is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console > as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. But if we do this, then we have two version functions do the same thing except caller/callee hold lock, I can't see much sense to have them at the same time. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:48:58AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > >> I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete > >> _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions > >> were needed. > >> > > > > Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' > > redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, > > then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, > > or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this > > will bring use codes' redundance. > > > > And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over > > do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel > > use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. > > Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() > over many more source files than the single-use case of > do_take_over_console(). > The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is > exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions were needed. Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this will bring use codes' redundance. And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: > I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete > _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions > were needed. > Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this will bring use codes' redundance. And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 01:15 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
Impact:
1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console
2:update take_over_console to do_take_over_console in comment
Commit dc9641895abb ("vt: delete unneeded functions
register_con_driver|take_over_console") delete take_over_console,
but forget to convert remain take_over_console's users to new API
do_take_over_console, this patch fix it.
Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing
---
Sorry for my mistake, I believe I do the full
kernel source find|grep, but the reality is I
forget take_over_console.
I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete
_unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions
were needed.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 01:15 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: Impact: 1:convert all remain take_over_console to do_take_over_console 2:update take_over_console to do_take_over_console in comment Commit dc9641895abb (vt: delete unneeded functions register_con_driver|take_over_console) delete take_over_console, but forget to convert remain take_over_console's users to new API do_take_over_console, this patch fix it. Signed-off-by: Wang YanQing udkni...@gmail.com --- Sorry for my mistake, I believe I do the full kernel source find|grep, but the reality is I forget take_over_console. I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions were needed. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions were needed. Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this will bring use codes' redundance. And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions were needed. Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this will bring use codes' redundance. And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:48:58AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions were needed. Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes' redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console, then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console, or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this will bring use codes' redundance. And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs. Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface is do_take_over_console, and the _workaround_ is exposing take_over_console as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface is do_take_over_console, and the _workaround_ is exposing take_over_console as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. But if we do this, then we have two version functions do the same thing except caller/callee hold lock, I can't see much sense to have them at the same time. Thanks. -- 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/
Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over_console
On 05/21/2013 12:29 PM, Wang YanQing wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() over many more source files than the single-use case of do_take_over_console(). The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. The workaround I'm referring to is commit 50e244cc793 which exposed do_take_over_console() as an interface to band aid the lock problems. I'm ok with take_over_console() being a lock wrapper around do_take_over_console(), if you are trying to preserve your other changes. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/
