On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:51:27PM +1100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> I'll ship them via my tree at this point I think, since I now need to
> queue a revert of the revert on top.
>
> I have a few vgacon/fbcon fixes that I need to go in this cycle.
Great, thanks.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel2.6 AR
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:51:27PM +1100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:26:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>> Can you please also pick up the (currently) three locking fixups
>> around fbcon? Just so that we don't repeat the same fun where people
>> complain about lockdep splats, but the fixes are stuck somewhere. And
>> I guess Dave would be
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:21:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Russell King
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Which may or may not be
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Russell King wrote:
>> >
>> > Which may or may not be a good thing depending how you look at it; it
>> > means that once your kernel bl
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:26:53AM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > Which may or may not be a good thing depending how you look at it; it
> > means that once your kernel blanks, you get a lockdep dump. At that
> > point you lose lockdep
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Russell King wrote:
>
> Which may or may not be a good thing depending how you look at it; it
> means that once your kernel blanks, you get a lockdep dump. At that
> point you lose lockdep checking for everything else because lockdep
> disables itself after the f
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:04:05AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Russell King wrote:
> >>
> >> So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
> >> release which issues lockdep complaints
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:52:51AM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
> > release which issues lockdep complaints when the console blanks, and
> > you think that's acceptable?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Russell King wrote:
>>
>> So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
>> release which issues lockdep complaints when the console blanks, and
>> you think that's acceptable?
>>
>> Addin
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Russell King wrote:
>
> So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
> release which issues lockdep complaints when the console blanks, and
> you think that's acceptable?
>
> Adding Linus and Andrew so they're aware of this issue...
Oh, we're
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Russell King wrote:
> So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
> release which issues lockdep complaints when the console blanks, and
> you think that's acceptable?
>
> Adding Linus and Andrew so they're aware of this issue...
Linus was t
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:07:16PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Russell King wrote:
> > Also adding Greg and Daniel to this as Daniel introduced the lockdep
> > checking.
> >
> > This looks extremely horrid to be to solve - the paths are rather deep
> > where the
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Russell King wrote:
> Also adding Greg and Daniel to this as Daniel introduced the lockdep
> checking.
>
> This looks extremely horrid to be to solve - the paths are rather deep
> where the dependency occurs. The two paths between the locks are:
>
> console_lock+
Also adding Greg and Daniel to this as Daniel introduced the lockdep
checking.
This looks extremely horrid to be to solve - the paths are rather deep
where the dependency occurs. The two paths between the locks are:
console_lock+0x5c/0x70
register_con_driver+0x44/0x150
take_over_console+0x24/0x3
This looks like a bug in the framebuffer/console layers. Looks like
we have one path where we call the notifier list, and a called
function takes the console lock, and another path where we hold the
console lock while calling the notifier list.
17 matches
Mail list logo
