Hi Am 19.07.2018 um 12:05 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky: > On (07/19/18 10:53), Petr Mladek wrote: >> 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)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
