On 08/29/2018, 06:13 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote: >> I would just do: >> if (!retval) >> tty->count++; >> here. Nobody from ldiscs should rely on tty->count. > > I thought about that and probably should have described in commit > message why I haven't done that: I prefer to keep it as was as I did Cc > stable tree - to keep the chance of regression to minimum. > > I agree that your way is cleaner, but probably it may be done as > cleanup on top for linux-next.. Agreed, so care to cook it up as 5/4 in this series :)? thanks, -- js suse labs
