From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] sa1111: Prevent deadlock in resume path In-Reply-To: <201005262333.47046.marek.vasut@gmail.com> References: <1274901104-22133-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <201005262115.57282.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <20100526201824.GA16418@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201005262333.47046.marek.vasut@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100526214236.GC16418@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:33:46PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dne St 26. kv?tna 2010 22:18:24 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a): > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:15:57PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Dne St 26. kv?tna 2010 21:14:25 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a): > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 09:11:44PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > This patch reorganises the sa1111_resume() function in a manner the > > > > > spinlock happens after calling the sa1111_wake(). This fixes two > > > > > bugs: > > > > > > > > > > 1) This function called sa1111_wake() which tried to claim the same > > > > > spinlock > > > > > > > > > > the sa1111_resume() already claimed. This would result in certain > > > > > deadlock. > > > > > > > > > > Original idea for this part: Russell King > > > > > > > > > > 2) The function didn't unlock the spinlock in case the chip didn't > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > > correct ID. > > > > > > > > > > Original idea for this part: Julia Lawall > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut > > > > > > > > Yea, good enough. > > > > > > You want me to fight your patch tracking system or will you just merge it > > > into your tree ? > > > > What do you mean "fight" ? Just send a standard git formatted patch > > to the email address with an additional KernelVersion: tag. It's > > not at all hard. > > What address, how, any howto? > > btw. why ?! Look at Eric, he doesn't need such crap, why do you complicate it so > much ? You expect a helpful reply with such an attitude. Sorry, I'm not going to bother with attacks like this. You earn the prize of figuring it out yourself.