From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756431AbcDEF0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 01:26:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:36000 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753700AbcDEF0V (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 01:26:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 06:26:08 +0100 From: Sudip Mukherjee To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] parport: register driver later Message-ID: <20160405052608.GA2625@sudip-tp> References: <1457277010-30593-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160307173255.GA26456@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160307173255.GA26456@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:32:55AM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 08:40:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > If the parport bus is not yet registered and any device using parallel > > port tries to register with the bus we get a stackdump with a message > > of Kernel bug. > > > > Reported-by: Fengguang Wu > > Cc: # 4.2+ > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee > > --- > > > > Hi Ross, > > Can you please test this patch in your setup. This is a respin of the > > previous patch in another way. > > Yep, this also solves the issue for me. > > Tested-by: Ross Zwisler Hi Greg, If this patch is ok, can we please have it in v4.6 . Anyway, the problem patch which this patch tried to fix has already been reverted by Linus - 1701f680407c ("Revert "ppdev: use new parport device model"") but we still can have problem with the other devices that use parport. BTW, I know you are busy, but in these situations where I need to have the fix urgently in the tree, is there any other way to solve the purpose? I feel it was incompetency on my part where Linus had to interfere and revert a patch even though the fix was already posted. regards sudip