linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: fix idling of devices during probe

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201207135753.GA26857@atomide.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Dec 2020 15:57:53 +0200
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: fix idling of devices during
 probe

* Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> [201204 16:43]:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:14 AM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
> >
> > > > Fixes: 21b2cec61c04 ("mmc: Set PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS for drivers that existed in v4.4")
> > >
> > > From the description it sounds like this problem has always existed
> > > but the async probe just tickled it reliably.  Seems like it'd make
> > > sense to tag the "Fixes" as some earlier commit so you make sure your
> > > fix gets picked to kernels even if they don't have the async probe
> > > patch?
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, maybe
> > Fixes: 04abaf07f6d5 ("ARM: OMAP2+: omap_device: Sync omap_device and
> > pm_runtime after probe defer")
> >
> > But on the other hand to stable branches only such patches are applied
> > which solve pratical problems not only theoretical problems. But maybe
> > it solves several random issues where nobody took care to debug them.
> >
> > That would be since v4.11.
> 
> I guess maybe best is to include both.  Then if someone is debugging
> why their async probe is failing they will notice this commit, but
> they also might decide to pick it earlier just to be safe...

OK I'll add the above fixes tag too and apply this into fixes.

Thanks,

Tony