[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:0.094 / U:30.492 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site