On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 08:47 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 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 :)?
Sure, will resend v2 with that and all tested-by.
--
Thanks,
Dmitry
