From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Slaby Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:52:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4E7CD560.8010706@suse.cz> References: <1314818699-10873-1-git-send-email-jslaby@suse.cz> <20110922224653.GB21296@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:58328 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751504Ab1IWSwd (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:52:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110922224653.GB21296@kroah.com> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Greg KH Cc: Nobuhiro Iwamatsu , gregkh@suse.de, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but >> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to >> unlock the lock without holding it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby >> --- >> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's >> not upstream yet). > > I can't do that, Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch (I cannot check now, obviously)? > and Nobuhiro Iwamatsu sent this to me before you, so > I'll take his version instead, if you don't mind. No, I don't of course. thanks, -- js suse labs