[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BYAPR11MB2632AD4B8022D3CD82E420EAFF690@BYAPR11MB2632.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 14:29:35 +0000
From: "Zhang, Qiang" <Qiang.Zhang@...driver.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: "balbi@...nel.org" <balbi@...nel.org>,
"colin.king@...onical.com" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: 回复: [PATCH v2] usb: gadget: function: fix missing spinlock in f_uac1_legacy
Thanks for your suggestin Greg KH
I think there is not need fix tags. I will resend.
thanks,
Zhang Qiang
________________________________________
发件人: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
发送时间: 2020年7月6日 18:31
收件人: Zhang, Qiang
抄送: balbi@...nel.org; colin.king@...onical.com; linux-usb@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
主题: Re: [PATCH v2] usb: gadget: function: fix missing spinlock in f_uac1_legacy
On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 02:16:16PM +0800, qiang.zhang@...driver.com wrote:
> From: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
>
> Add a missing spinlock protection to the add operation of the "audio->play_queue"
> in "f_audio_out_ep_complete" function.
That says _what_ you did, but not _why_ you did that. Why is a lock
needed here? What does this protect?
What kernel commit does this "fix"? Put that in the "Fixes:" line, and
probably you need a "cc: stable" in that area too, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists