From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:08:40 -0700 Message-ID: <20110923190840.GA31009@suse.de> References: <1314818699-10873-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <20110922224653.GB21296@kroah.com> <4E7CD560.8010706@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41140 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187Ab1IWTJE (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:09:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E7CD560.8010706@suse.cz> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Greg KH , Nobuhiro Iwamatsu , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 08:52:16PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but > >> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to > >> unlock the lock without holding it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby > >> --- > >> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's > >> not upstream yet). > > > > I can't do that, > > Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel > with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next > doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch > (I cannot check now, obviously)? Because it is in my tree and I can't rebase it as others depend on it (linux-next and others.) sorry, greg k-h