From: Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@gmail.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:37:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5047F045.5060103@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5047ED8C.1060005@linux.intel.com>
On 09/05/2012 05:25 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> 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.
On second thought, there are way too many changes to pch_uart that are
required before this patch can really be applied prior to 3.4. I suspect
these are not all appropriate for -stable. I'd be happy just getting
this into 3.4.11. 2588aba002d14e938c2f56d299ecf3e7ce1302a5 cherry-picks
cleanly to 3.4.
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 0:04 [PATCH] pch_uart: Add eg20t_port lock field, avoid recursive spinlocks Darren Hart
2012-09-06 0:14 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-09-06 0:18 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-09-06 0:25 ` Darren Hart
2012-09-06 0:37 ` Darren Hart [this message]
2012-09-27 21:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5047F045.5060103@linux.intel.com \
--to=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomoya.rohm@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox