On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 14:38:45 +0100 Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > This was my fear as well. Steven argued that this was theoretical. > And I do not have a real-life bullets against this argument at > the moment. And my argument is still if such a situation happens, the system is so fscked up that it should just crash. > > My current main worry with Steven's approach is a risk of deadlocks > that Jan Kara saw when he played with similar solution. And if there exists such a deadlock, then the deadlock exists today. > > Also I am afraid that it would add yet another twist to the console > locking operations. It is already quite hard to follow the logic, > see the games with: > > + console_locked > + console_suspended > + can_use_console() > + exclusive_console > > And Steven is going to add: > > + console_owner > + waiter Agreed. Console_lock is just ugly. And this may just make it uglier :-/ > > But let's wait for the patch. It might look and work nicely > in the end. Oh, I need to write a patch? Bah, I guess I should. Where's all those developers dying to do kernel programing where I can pass this off to? -- Steve -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
