Hi,
On (07/19/18 12:20), Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Am 19.07.2018 um 12:05 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky:
On (07/19/18 10:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
Hmm, this approach is racy if there are other users saving/setting/restoring ignore_console_lock_warning in parallel. I mean that this works only when the entire safe/set/restore operation is nested or sequential.
Good point!
However, I tend to think that we don't need to care about it that much. Having a counter to permit nesting would probably be better, but, like you said, it's unlikely that we will see any problems with ignore_console_lock_warning anyway. So we can keep it simple [IOW - the way it is].
I just sent a new patch set based on atomic_t
Ah, just saw the new version.
and TBH it's easier to use that this version. I only had to introduce the save-state variable in the caller because I couldn't do inc/dec.
No objections, if it makes your life easier. Thanks.
-ss