[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzMDjbrPNqK9xJp3@alley>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:07:09 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 07/18] printk: Convert console list walks for
readers to list lock
On Sat 2022-09-24 02:10:43, John Ogness wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> Facilities which expose console information to sysfs or procfs can use the
> new list protection to keep the list stable. No need to hold console lock.
>
> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 6 +++---
> fs/proc/consoles.c | 6 +++---
> kernel/printk/printk.c | 8 ++++----
As described in the review of the 6th patch, the semantic of
the list_lock (module_mutex) is not well defined from my POV.
I would prefer to keep only one global console lock.
That said, the procf and sysfs interface is read-only. It seems
to be safe to show the info under the new console_srcu read lock.
On the other hand, console_device() should see the console
list in a consistent state. The first console with tty console->driver
should have the CON_CONSDEV flag set. Alternatively, we could
manipulate the list and the flag a safe way from the SRCU POV
but it is not worth it. So, I would keep console_lock()
in console_device() for now.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists