On 07/30/2014 10:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote: >> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> [cut] >>> >>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483. >> >> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally >> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month). >> >> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired >> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring >> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael >> realize this before proceeding. >> >> I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches), >> but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go >> through. The fix would be easier to make after that. >> >>>>> >>>>> OK, I'm convinced by this. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right? >>>> >>>> Rafael, I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure what the protocol is for >>>> adding sta...@kernel.org though ...
Rafael, let me (again) re-write the patch description. I think Saravana has raised an important issue that I have not clearly identified why it is safe to remove this code in my patch description. Also, I want to clearly identify the appropriate -stable releases to push this out to. I'll submit a [v3] later today or tomorrow. P. > > Rafael > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
