[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeXYn46wQ5EXkk_MOQ49ybtyTeoQS6BS1X9DkC6hbeF-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 17:48:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] serial: core: fix broken sysrq port unlock
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:03 PM Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Commit d6e1935819db ("serial: core: Allow processing sysrq at port
> unlock time") worked around a circular locking dependency by adding
> helpers used to defer sysrq processing to when the port lock was
> released.
>
> A later commit unfortunately converted these inline helpers to exported
> functions despite the fact that the unlock helper was restoring irq
> flags, something which needs to be done in the same function that saved
> them (e.g. on SPARC).
I'm not familiar with sparc, can you elaborate a bit what is ABI /
architecture lock implementation background?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists