[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YWfdY/ws353nJEiE@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:33:55 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] serial: imx: fix crash when un/re-binding console
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 09:10:52AM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> From: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
>
> If the device used as a serial console gets un/re-binded, then
> register_console() will call imx_uart_setup_console() again.
> Drop __init so that imx_uart_setup_console() can be safely called
> at runtime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>
> Signed-off-by: Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
What commit does this "fix"? Should this go to stable kernels? If so,
how far back?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> index 8b121cd869e9..51a9f9423b1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
> @@ -2017,7 +2017,7 @@ imx_uart_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, unsigned int count)
> * If the port was already initialised (eg, by a boot loader),
> * try to determine the current setup.
> */
> -static void __init
> +static void
> imx_uart_console_get_options(struct imx_port *sport, int *baud,
> int *parity, int *bits)
> {
> @@ -2076,7 +2076,7 @@ imx_uart_console_get_options(struct imx_port *sport, int *baud,
> }
> }
>
> -static int __init
> +static int
> imx_uart_console_setup(struct console *co, char *options)
Why didn't we get a build warning about this section being called by
code that was not thrown away? That feels odd...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists