On (12/12/18 14:36), Petr Mladek wrote:
OK, really didn't know that! I wasn't Cc-ed on that AUTOSEL email, and I wasn't Cc-ed on this whole discussion and found it purely accidentally while browsing linux-mm list.
I am sorry that I did not CC you. There were so many people in CC. I expected that all people mentioned in the related commit message were included by default.
No worries! I'm not blaming anyone.
So if you are willing to backport this set to -stable, then I wouldn't mind, probably would be more correct if we don't advertise this as a "panic() deadlock fix"
This should not be a problem. I guess that stable does not modify the original commit messages unless there is a change.
Agreed.
In the meantime, I can add my Acked-by to this backport if it helps.
I am fine with back-porting the patches now. They have got much more testing in the meantime and nobody reported any regression. They seems to help in more situations than we expected. Finally, there is someone requesting the backport who spent non-trivial time on tracking the problem and testing.
Great!
Sasha, here is Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com from me.
And expect another backport request in 1 or 2 weeks - the patch which eliminates the existing "panic CPU != uart_port lock owner CPU" limitation.
-ss