I don't know anyone with this hardware who can test a patch. If you
find someone then you should send a patch to reorder the other original
unlock and deref.
Otherwise, I would just leave it alone for now.
regards,
dan carpenter
___
devel mailing list
On 18/03/2015 14:54, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:43:01PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
On 18/03/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
This changelog still doesn't make sense so I took a look at the code.
tty_ldisc_deref() is an unlock function. So this is a lock ordering
bug
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:43:01PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
>
>
> On 18/03/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >This changelog still doesn't make sense so I took a look at the code.
> >
> >tty_ldisc_deref() is an unlock function. So this is a lock ordering
> >bug. What makes you think the o
On 18/03/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
This changelog still doesn't make sense so I took a look at the code.
tty_ldisc_deref() is an unlock function. So this is a lock ordering
bug. What makes you think the original ordering was correct? Who
reported this bug? What are the effects of th
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:21:08PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
> The refactoring intrduced in
> c84a083b995b ("Staging: dgnc: Use goto for spinlock release before return")
> inverts the order in which the lock is released and ld is tested for nullity.
>
> This patch restores the execution flow.
