Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:07:47 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 09/18] serial: kgdboc: Lock console list in probe
 function
Message-ID: <Yzaj0wBz8uRXU5S/@alley>
References: <20220924000454.3319186-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
 <20220924000454.3319186-10-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220924000454.3319186-10-john.ogness@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 2022-09-24 02:10:45, John Ogness wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> 
> Unprotected list walks are not necessarily safe.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>

It looks correct in principle. There is still a discussion [1] whether
to introduce console_list_lock() or use the existing console_lock(),
see https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220924000454.3319186-7-john.ogness@linutronix.de

Depending on the result of the discussion, with either
console_list_lock() or console_lock():

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr