From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760056Ab2IFA00 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:26:26 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:17385 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754976Ab2IFA0Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:26:24 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,377,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="218339372" Message-ID: <5047ED8C.1060005@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:25:48 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Stable , Tomoya MORINAGA , Feng Tang , Alexander Stein Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks References: <422aa2054659680fb138d2153dcc852b2620b04d.1346889148.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <20120906001448.GA7278@kroah.com> <20120906001841.GA7433@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20120906001841.GA7433@kroah.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/05/2012 05:18 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:14:48PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:04:07PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >>> The following patch has been included in linux-next >>> (fe89def79c48e2149abdd1e816523e69a9067191) but has not yet landed in mainline >>> nor been queued for stable so far as I can determine. This patch addresses a >>> deadlock in mainline and is a prerequisite for an additional fix required by the >>> PREEMPT_RT kernel. Can we get this pulled into 3.4.11 please? >> >> 3.4.11? It has to hit Linus's tree first. >> >>> Perhaps I am >>> jumping the gun, but this patch was originally pulled on June 19, 2012. >> >> Remember, we missed a pull cycle for tty due to other problems, I >> thought I picked all of the different pieces needed for 3.6, but I must >> of missed this one. > > Nope, it made it, it is commit 2588aba002d14e938c2f56d299ecf3e7ce1302a5. Doh, I pulled master and stable, but only checked stable. Sigh. My apologies Greg. > > Now, do you want that patch in the -stable releases? If so, how far > back? :) Yes, back to 3.0 would be ideal. It needs mangling for 3.2 and back though. I will send patches for 3.4, 3.2 and possibly 3.0 following the stable_kernel_rules.txt procedure. > > Sorry for the mess, Looks like it was my mess today :-) -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel