From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:34404 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753222AbcDENRs (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:17:48 -0400 Message-ID: <5703BAF0.2080506@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:47:36 +0530 From: Sudip Mukherjee MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Ross Zwisler Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] parport: register driver later References: <1457277010-30593-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160307173255.GA26456@linux.intel.com> <20160405052608.GA2625@sudip-tp> <20160405125830.GA25758@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20160405125830.GA25758@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 05 April 2016 06:28 PM, Greg KH wrote: > 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 :) Well. its actually my fault. Previously I used to ping and remind you if there is something urgent which needed to go in before your tree closes. But this time I got busy with the job change and traveling and everything was a mess on my side. So, now that the ppdev patch has been reverted by Linus, what do you suggest that we do? I will say, to have this patch as a temporary fix (for other devices) while I work on the deferred probe for parport which will solve the problem. regards sudip