[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1535716498.23560.78.camel@arista.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:54:58 +0100
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] tty: Drop tty->count on tty_reopen() failure
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists