Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:21:52 +0100 | From | Alan Jenkins <> | Subject | Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k : ath5k_config_interface deadlock fix |
| |
Jiri Slaby wrote: > Bob Copeland napsal(a): > >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:03:37 +0300 Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dave Young napsal(a): >>>>> >>>>>> In the drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c, there's recursive locking of >>>>>> sc->lock >>>>>> >>>>> Should be fixed already: >>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=bc05116ab33d30342e2b4b1bcc6d6e1184e9df97 >>>>> >>>> I guess that didn't make it to -stable? >>>> >>> (cc stable!) >>> >> Not to worry, the commit that introduced it was >> 9d139c810a2aa17365cc548d0cd2a189d8433c65, which as far as I can tell >> came in after 2.6.26. >> > > git-describe 9d139c810a2aa17365cc548d0cd2a189d8433c65 > v2.6.26-rc8-1219-g9d139c8 > > Jiri Slaby wrote: > Bob Copeland napsal(a): > >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:03:37 +0300 Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dave Young napsal(a): >>>>> >>>>>> In the drivers/net/wireless/ath5k/base.c, there's recursive locking of >>>>>> sc->lock >>>>>> >>>>> Should be fixed already: >>>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-2.6.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=bc05116ab33d30342e2b4b1bcc6d6e1184e9df97 >>>>> >>>> I guess that didn't make it to -stable? >>>> >>> (cc stable!) >>> >> Not to worry, the commit that introduced it was >> 9d139c810a2aa17365cc548d0cd2a189d8433c65, which as far as I can tell >> came in after 2.6.26. >> > > git-describe 9d139c810a2aa17365cc548d0cd2a189d8433c65 > v2.6.26-rc8-1219-g9d139c8 > Unfortunately git-describe can be misleading.
All this tells you is that the commit in question was based on (a descendant of) v2.6.26-rc8. It doesn't tell you whether the patch is present in v2.6.26.
There must be a better way (for efficient merges, right?). But all I can think of is comparing the files in question against the diff. I checked myself and the changes don't appear to have been included in v2.6.26.
Alan
| |