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

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 08:52:16PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 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)?

Because it is in my tree and I can't rebase it as others depend on it
(linux-next and others.)

sorry,

greg k-h
--
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/