Hi, On (07/19/18 12:20), Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > 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 Ah, just saw the new version. > 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. No objections, if it makes your life easier. Thanks. -ss _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
