On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:46:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vet
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley
> > >
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > >>> On
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley
> > wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Fine. Just an
On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley
> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
Fine. Just another expedient fix piled on top of other expedient fixes
that go bac
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> Fine. Just another expedient fix piled on top of other expedient fixes
>>> that go back past 3.9 with no end in sight.
>>
>> I'm also happy
On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> Fine. Just another expedient fix piled on top of other expedient fixes
>> that go back past 3.9 with no end in sight.
>
> I'm also happy to look into narrowing down the scope of console_lock in
>
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 09:38 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2014 05:23 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:53 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:
On 12/16/2014 10:10 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Peter Hurley
> wrote:
>>> The fix will be anyway the same in principal even after Daniel's planned
>>> rework for fbcon/fbdev: not holding the console_lock while freeing the
>>> sysfs entries.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't know
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> The fix will be anyway the same in principal even after Daniel's planned
>> rework for fbcon/fbdev: not holding the console_lock while freeing the
>> sysfs entries.
>
> Oh, I didn't know Daniel was planning to rework fbcon/fbdev.
I don't. I'
On 12/16/2014 09:38 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 12/16/2014 05:23 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:53 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> Currently there is a lock o
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 07:50 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 12/16/2014 05:23 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:53 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>> Currently there is a lock order problem between the console lock and th
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> So NACK from me for this.
>>
>> I think I proved it in the commit message that this issue is independent
>> of fbcon/fbdev, so refactoring these will not solve it. This patch fixes
>> an issue in vt and while your points may be valid, they a
On 12/16/2014 05:23 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:53 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> Currently there is a lock order problem between the console lock and the
>>> kernfs s_active lock of the console driver's bind sysfs e
On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 08:53 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Currently there is a lock order problem between the console lock and the
> > kernfs s_active lock of the console driver's bind sysfs entry. When
> > writing to the sysfs entry th
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> Currently there is a lock order problem between the console lock and the
> kernfs s_active lock of the console driver's bind sysfs entry. When
> writing to the sysfs entry the lock order is first s_active then console
> lock, when unregis
16 matches
Mail list logo
