On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:46:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:05:45PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:01 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:59:05PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > On 12/16/2014 09:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Peter Hurley > > > > > <pe...@hurleysoftware.com> wrote: > > > > >> On 12/16/2014 11:22 AM, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > >>> On Tue, 2014-12-16 at 10:00 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: > > > > >>>> Fine. Just another expedient fix piled on top of other expedient > > > > >>>> fixes > > > > >>>> that go back past 3.9 with no end in sight. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I'm also happy to look into narrowing down the scope of > > > > >>> console_lock in > > > > >>> fbdev/fbcon as was suggested. But doing that as a follow-up to this > > > > >>> change still makes sense to me since it will take more time and > > > > >>> have the > > > > >>> risk of regressions that are not related to what this change fixes. > > > > >> > > > > >> I apologize for my tone. I'm not blaming you for the current > > > > >> situation, > > > > >> nor is it your responsibility to go fix vt/fbcon/fbdev driver stack > > > > >> inversion. I'm just trying to bring some awareness of the larger > > > > >> scope, > > > > >> so that collectively we take action and resolve the underlying > > > > >> problems. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I guess I should tune down my NACK to a Grumpy-if-merged-by too. > > > > > We have a lot of nonoptimal solutions at hand here :( > > > > > > > > So where does that leave us with this fix? Should we wait for someone > > > > to come along and do all the rework? Imre said he'd be willing to do > > > > it, but still feels this fix makes sense > > > > > > > > Or we could just abandon the fb layer altogether (my preference). In > > > > that case fixing this is fine, since we'll be able to ignore it for > > > > configs that switch over to using !fbdev and kmscon. > > > > > > I think I already merged the patches a while ago :) > > > > Yes, but only the first two patches. This third one is not merged > > AFAICS. > > Yeah there was a big discussion in that one which eventualy resulted in my > grumpy ack and my nack retracted. So fwiw > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Can someone resend this patch? It's long-gone from my patch queue. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/