[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200129165053.GA392@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 01:50:53 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] console: Introduce ->exit() callback
On (20/01/30 00:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/01/29 16:25), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > I understand. Seems the ->setup() has to be idempotent. We can tell the same
> > for ->exit() in some comment.
> >
> > Can you describe, btw, struct console in kernel doc format?
> > It will be very helpful!
>
> We probably need some documentation.
>
> > > > In both cases we will get the console to have CON_ENABLED flag set.
> > >
> > > And there are sneaky consoles that have CON_ENABLED before we even
> > > register them.
> >
> > So, taking into consideration my comment to the previous patch, what would be
> > suggested guard here?
> >
> > For a starter something like this?
> >
> > if ((console->flags & CON_ENABLED) && console->exit)
> > console->exit(console);
>
> This will work if we also add something like this
No, wait... This will not work, console can be suspended, yet
still registered. I think the only criteria is "the console is
on the list".
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists