From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: akpm@linux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:29:12 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] sdhci-s3c: fix incorrect spinlock usage after merge In-Reply-To: <20100921011711.GB5873@void.printf.net> References: <1284987822-17955-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20100921011711.GB5873@void.printf.net> Message-ID: <20100920182912.a29ff3d1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:17:11 +0100 Chris Ball wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:03:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > In the commit f522886e202a34a2191dd5d471b3c4d46410a9a0 a merge conflict > > in the sdhci-s3c driver been fixed. However the fix used incorrect > > spinlock operation - it cause a race with sdhci interrupt service. The > > correct way to solve it is to use spin_lock_irqsave/irqrestore() calls. > > Thanks, applied to mmc-next with: > Signed-off-by: Chris Ball > > Andrew, not sure how best to get this upstream -- do you want to send > this up to Linus (for -rc5) via your queue in -mm? Ordinarily I'd expect you to send it to Linus. I tend to merge important-looking bugfixes in my tree in case maintainers lose them (happens regularly). I'll then start spamming the maintainer with the patch. If the maintainer remains dead then I might merge it myself, or I might tag it for -stable backporting and try again in the next kernel. If the maintainer can't be bothered setting up a pull request then he can just send an acked-by and explicitly ask me to merge it up and I'll then add it to my next approximately-weekly Linus patchbombing.