From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tty: serial: imx: fix lockup and garbage on SMP Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:03:18 +0200 Message-ID: <503C5F26.4020108@de.bosch.com> References: <1346053012-25686-1-git-send-email-dirk.behme@de.bosch.com> <20120827223134.GD2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> <20120827225142.GA11302@kroah.com> <20120827233756.GH2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp2-v.fe.bosch.de ([139.15.237.6]:25237 "EHLO smtp2-v.fe.bosch.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751465Ab2H1GGI (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 02:06:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120827233756.GH2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "kernel@pengutronix.de" , Alan Cox On 28.08.2012 01:37, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On both of them? I can do that if needed. How far back should they go? >> > It should be okay to apply on 3.4 and 3.5. For patch #1/2: Yes, thanks! > But patch #2 is still in > question. I do not like the #ifdef. For patch #2/2: Yes, understood. I'll look at Troy's proposal and will update #2/2. Many thanks and best regards Dirk From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dirk.behme@de.bosch.com (Dirk Behme) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:03:18 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] tty: serial: imx: fix lockup and garbage on SMP In-Reply-To: <20120827233756.GH2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> References: <1346053012-25686-1-git-send-email-dirk.behme@de.bosch.com> <20120827223134.GD2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> <20120827225142.GA11302@kroah.com> <20120827233756.GH2281@r65073-Latitude-D630> Message-ID: <503C5F26.4020108@de.bosch.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 28.08.2012 01:37, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 03:51:42PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On both of them? I can do that if needed. How far back should they go? >> > It should be okay to apply on 3.4 and 3.5. For patch #1/2: Yes, thanks! > But patch #2 is still in > question. I do not like the #ifdef. For patch #2/2: Yes, understood. I'll look at Troy's proposal and will update #2/2. Many thanks and best regards Dirk