On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:16 AM, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy
wrote:
> On 10/01/2017 07:48 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM,
>> wrote:
>> Since it sounds as candidate for stable,
>
> Yes.
>>
>> can we have split it to just
>> as less as possible intrusive fix + moving to
Hi Andy,
On 10/01/2017 07:48 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM,
wrote:
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
Currently, update_no_reboot_bit() function implemented in this driver
uses mutex_lock to protect its register updates. But this function is
called with in atomic c
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:37 AM,
wrote:
> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
>
> Currently, update_no_reboot_bit() function implemented in this driver
> uses mutex_lock to protect its register updates. But this function is
> called with in atomic context in iTCO_wdt_start() and iTCO_wdt_stop()
> fun
From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
Currently, update_no_reboot_bit() function implemented in this driver
uses mutex_lock to protect its register updates. But this function is
called with in atomic context in iTCO_wdt_start() and iTCO_wdt_stop()
functions in iTCO_wdt.c driver, which in turn causes "
4 matches
Mail list logo