From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@gmail.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:37:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5047F045.5060103@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5047ED8C.1060005@linux.intel.com>
On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:14:48PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:04:07PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> The following patch has been included in linux-next
>>>> (fe89def79c48e2149abdd1e816523e69a9067191) but has not yet landed in mainline
>>>> nor been queued for stable so far as I can determine. This patch addresses a
>>>> deadlock in mainline and is a prerequisite for an additional fix required by the
>>>> PREEMPT_RT kernel. Can we get this pulled into 3.4.11 please?
>>>
>>> 3.4.11? It has to hit Linus's tree first.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps I am
>>>> jumping the gun, but this patch was originally pulled on June 19, 2012.
>>>
>>> Remember, we missed a pull cycle for tty due to other problems, I
>>> thought I picked all of the different pieces needed for 3.6, but I must
>>> of missed this one.
>>
>> Nope, it made it, it is commit 2588aba002d14e938c2f56d299ecf3e7ce1302a5.
>
> Doh, I pulled master and stable, but only checked stable. Sigh. My
> apologies Greg.
>
>>
>> Now, do you want that patch in the -stable releases? If so, how far
>> back? :)
>
> Yes, back to 3.0 would be ideal. It needs mangling for 3.2 and back
> though. I will send patches for 3.4, 3.2 and possibly 3.0 following the
> stable_kernel_rules.txt procedure.
On second thought, there are way too many changes to pch_uart that are
required before this patch can really be applied prior to 3.4. I suspect
these are not all appropriate for -stable. I'd be happy just getting
this into 3.4.11. 2588aba002d14e938c2f56d299ecf3e7ce1302a5 cherry-picks
cleanly to 3.4.
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 0:04 [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks Darren Hart
2012-09-06 0:14 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-09-06 0:18 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-09-06 0:25 ` Darren Hart
2012-09-06 0:37 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2012-09-27 21:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5047F045.5060103@linux.intel.com \
--to=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomoya.rohm@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.