[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance
    On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:
    > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
    >> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but
    >> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to
    >> unlock the lock without holding it.
    >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <>
    >> ---
    >> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's
    >> not upstream yet).
    > I can't do that,

    Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel
    with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next
    doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch
    (I cannot check now, obviously)?

    > and Nobuhiro Iwamatsu sent this to me before you, so
    > I'll take his version instead, if you don't mind.

    No, I don't of course.

    suse labs

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-23 20:55    [W:0.020 / U:121.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site