[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50E81763.1070501@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:06:59 +0100
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <florianSchandinat@....de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, Bernie Thompson <bernie@...gable.com>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fb: Rework locking to fix lock ordering on takeover
Am 05.01.2013 13:07, schrieb Alan Cox:
>> So to add such an "I am crap" flag my idea would be to add an
>> .fb_handle_damage to struct fb_ops and then call that (if exists)
>> whenever something was changed.
>
> I was thinking much higher level - ie at the printk kind of level
>
>> My patch (for udlfb) follows as an reply to this message. If that patch
>> is ok, it should be applied to smscufx too (I would make it). In regard
>> to udl I don't know, I haven't had a deeper look at it nor used it up to
>> now.
>
> Looks pretty clean as a solution to me.
Thanks and sorry for the two empty lines in the patch. I swear I had a
look at the patch before sending it out, but haven't seen them.
So should I make the same patch for smscufx and while beeing there,
send out at v2 without those 2 empty lines?
Regards,
Alexander
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists