@@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ static inline int resize_screen(struct vc_data *vc, int width, int height,/* Resizes the resolution of the display adapater */interr=0;-if(vc->vc_mode!=KD_GRAPHICS&&vc->vc_sw->con_resize)+if(vc->vc_sw->con_resize)err=vc->vc_sw->con_resize(vc,width,height,user);returnerr;
@@ -2019,7 +2019,7 @@ static int fbcon_resize(struct vc_data *vc, unsigned int width,return-EINVAL;pr_debug("resize now %ix%i\n",var.xres,var.yres);-if(con_is_visible(vc)){+if(con_is_visible(vc)&&vc->vc_mode==KD_TEXT){var.activate=FB_ACTIVATE_NOW|FB_ACTIVATE_FORCE;fb_set_var(info,&var);
So I think the commit is fine, and yes, it should be applied to
stable, but it's one of those "there were three different patches in
as many days to fix the problem, and this is the right one, but maybe
stable should hold off for a while to see that there aren't any
problem reports".
I don't think there will be any problems from this, but while the
patch is tiny, it's conceptually quite a big change to something that
people haven't really touched for a long time.
So use your own judgement, but it might be a good idea to wait a week
before backporting this to see if anything screams.
Linus
So I think the commit is fine, and yes, it should be applied to
stable, but it's one of those "there were three different patches in
as many days to fix the problem, and this is the right one, but maybe
stable should hold off for a while to see that there aren't any
problem reports".
I don't think there will be any problems from this, but while the
patch is tiny, it's conceptually quite a big change to something that
people haven't really touched for a long time.
So use your own judgement, but it might be a good idea to wait a week
before backporting this to see if anything screams.
I was going to wait a few weeks for this, and the other vt patches that
were marked with cc: stable@ before queueing them up.
thanks,
greg k-h
So I think the commit is fine, and yes, it should be applied to
stable, but it's one of those "there were three different patches in
as many days to fix the problem, and this is the right one, but maybe
stable should hold off for a while to see that there aren't any
problem reports".
I don't think there will be any problems from this, but while the
patch is tiny, it's conceptually quite a big change to something that
people haven't really touched for a long time.
So use your own judgement, but it might be a good idea to wait a week
before backporting this to see if anything screams.
I was going to wait a few weeks for this, and the other vt patches that
were marked with cc: stable@ before queueing them up.
So I think the commit is fine, and yes, it should be applied to
stable, but it's one of those "there were three different patches in
as many days to fix the problem, and this is the right one, but maybe
stable should hold off for a while to see that there aren't any
problem reports".
I don't think there will be any problems from this, but while the
patch is tiny, it's conceptually quite a big change to something that
people haven't really touched for a long time.
So use your own judgement, but it might be a good idea to wait a week
before backporting this to see if anything screams.
I was going to wait a few weeks for this, and the other vt patches that
were marked with cc: stable@ before queueing them up.
So I think the commit is fine, and yes, it should be applied to
stable, but it's one of those "there were three different patches in
as many days to fix the problem, and this is the right one, but maybe
stable should hold off for a while to see that there aren't any
problem reports".
I don't think there will be any problems from this, but while the
patch is tiny, it's conceptually quite a big change to something that
people haven't really touched for a long time.
So use your own judgement, but it might be a good idea to wait a week
before backporting this to see if anything screams.
I was going to wait a few weeks for this, and the other vt patches that
were marked with cc: stable@ before queueing them up.