On 6/7/26 8:30 PM, Grzegorz Nitka wrote:
> Neither parent->dpll_refs nor pin->dpll_refs on its own is a correct
> iteration target at unregister time:
>
> - pin->dpll_refs includes DPLLs the child was registered against
> via a different parent or directly; blind unregister WARNs on
> the cookie miss in dpll_xa_ref_pin_del().
> - parent->dpll_refs reflects the parent's current attachments, not
> those at child-register time. Another driver may have (un)reg'd
> the parent against additional DPLLs in the meantime, so we miss
> registrations that exist and visit DPLLs that have none.
>
> Walk pin->dpll_refs and use dpll_pin_registration_find() to filter
> to entries whose cookie is this parent. Symmetric with
> dpll_pin_on_pin_register(), correct under any subsequent change to
> parent->dpll_refs.
>
> Fixes: 9431063ad323 ("dpll: core: Add DPLL framework base functions")
> Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Nitka <[email protected]>
The current guidance is to avoid the Fixes tag for net-next patches,
when such tag refers to code already into Linus's tree.
If it's a real user-visible issue, the patch should target net.
Otherwise if the intended target is really net-next, no fixes tag please.
Unrelated important node: sashiko (gemini) still has some comments, some
of them looks new and relevant to me i.e. the possible divide by zero
bug in patch 11, see:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260607183045.1213735-1-grzegorz.nitka%40intel.com
/P
