From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: do not leave semaphore armed when copying properties fails Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:38:28 -0800 Message-ID: <20170309173828.GA20077@dtor-ws> References: <20170308184102.29334-1-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20170309144833.3mehuovi3wwqma2m@ninjato> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170309144833.3mehuovi3wwqma2m@ninjato> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Wolfram, > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:41:01AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > We should not leave i2c_register_board_info() early, without unlocking the > > __i2c_board_lock. > > > > Fixes: b0c1e95ab44f ("i2c: copy device properties when using ...") > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov > > So, it seems that patches 1+2 are related. Because I'd like to have > patch 2 sitting in for-next for a whole cycle for sure, my plan is to > revert the faulty b0c1e95ab44f from for-current and apply the fixed > version (b0c1e95ab44f + this patch squashed) to for-next as well. > > Is that okay with you? I am perfectly fine with reverting b0c1e95ab44f from for-current, however I wonder if we could have an immutable branch off 4.11-rc2 (or -rc1) containing fixed version of patch copying property + patch adding resources + patch exporting i2c_client_type (I will CC you on that shortly), which we could share between your tree and mine so I can get in changes to a few drivers on my side (eeti_ts, atmel, etc). If you are OK with this I can prepare said branch. Thanks! -- Dmitry