Re: [PATCH 1/4] TTY: serial, fix locking imbalance

[Jiri Slaby]

On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but
>> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to
>> unlock the lock without holding it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's
>> not upstream yet).
> 
> I can't do that,

Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel
with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next
doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch
(I cannot check now, obviously)?

> and Nobuhiro Iwamatsu sent this to me before you, so
> I'll take his version instead, if you don't mind.

No, I don't of course.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/