From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:46378 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbcDEM6d (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:58:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:58:30 -0400 From: Greg KH To: Sudip Mukherjee Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] parport: register driver later Message-ID: <20160405125830.GA25758@kroah.com> References: <1457277010-30593-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160307173255.GA26456@linux.intel.com> <20160405052608.GA2625@sudip-tp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160405052608.GA2625@sudip-tp> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 06:26:08AM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > 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. A bit better commit message here would have caused me to notice it. Something like "Revert a broken patch because it crashes all of our machines without it!!!" would be a hint it needed to go in :) I think the lack of parport hardware around seems to have caused a total lack of testing this code path while it was in linux-next and in my local testing, sorry about that, it should have been caught a lot earlier. thanks, greg k-h