[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7d97d1f-ee2c-25b3-5144-651b59da2d59@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 08:02:38 +0200
From: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To: Qiushi Wu <wu000273@....edu>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, "kjlu@....edu" <kjlu@....edu>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@...inx.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: xiic: Fix reference count leaks.
Hi Qiushi,
On 13. 07. 20 21:41, Qiushi Wu wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> I think multiple previous patches also fixed similar problems, such as
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2404751/
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2227849.html
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-tegra/patch/20200520095148.10995-1-dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn/
>
> But recently, people are discussing reimplementing
> function pm_runtime_get_sync(), because it often misguides users and
> introducing bugs.
> So at this time point, I'm not sure if we should fix this issue in the
> current version or wait for the new implementation of this API. : )
If we apply this patch then it needs to be reverted when API is fixed.
Is there any timeline mentioned?
If this will take some time I am fine with applying this patch.
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists