On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:18:49AM +0800, Wang YanQing wrote: > > Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock() > > over many more source files than the single-use case of > > do_take_over_console(). > > > The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is > > exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap. > > This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal, > but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite > do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. > > But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface > is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console > as a wrap base on do_take_over_console. But if we do this, then we have two version functions do the same thing except caller/callee hold lock, I can't see much sense to have them at the same time. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
