Hi
Am 19.07.2018 um 12:05 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky:
On (07/19/18 10:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
quoted
Hmm, this approach is racy if there are other users
saving/setting/restoring ignore_console_lock_warning in parallel.
I mean that this works only when the entire safe/set/restore
operation is nested or sequential.
Good point!
However, I tend to think that we don't need to care about it
that much. Having a counter to permit nesting would probably be
better, but, like you said, it's unlikely that we will see any
problems with ignore_console_lock_warning anyway. So we can keep
it simple [IOW - the way it is].
I just sent a new patch set based on atomic_t and TBH it's easier to use
that this version. I only had to introduce the save-state variable in
the caller because I couldn't do inc/dec.
Best regards
Thomas
-ss
--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nürnberg
Tel: +49-911-74053-0; Fax: +49-911-7417755; https://www.suse.com/
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard,
Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)