| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CACRpkda3g7FXV4vLtj0LnV5H3vhumDrngHeJ6F7yc8y1k_dABg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:06:13 +0100 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> Cc: "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote: > The single pinmux controller can be cascaded to the other interrupt > controllers. Hence when propagating wake-up settings to its parent > interrupt controller, there's possiblity of detecting possible recursive > locking and getting lockdep warning. > > This patch avoids this false positive by using a separate lockdep class > for this single pinctrl interrupts. > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> > Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> I need Tony's ACK on this patch before applying. Is it a regression that needs to go into fixes? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists