[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2025040553-video-declared-7d54@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 08:35:44 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
Cc: alex@...ti.fr, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
conor.dooley@...rochip.com, jirislaby@...nel.org,
john.ogness@...utronix.de, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, pmladek@...e.com,
samuel.holland@...ive.com, u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: sifive: lock port in startup()/shutdown()
callbacks
On Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 01:43:38PM +0900, Ryo Takakura wrote:
> startup()/shutdown() callbacks access SIFIVE_SERIAL_IE_OFFS.
> The register is also accessed from write() callback.
>
> If console were printing and startup()/shutdown() callback
> gets called, its access to the register could be overwritten.
>
> Add port->lock to startup()/shutdown() callbacks to make sure
> their access to SIFIVE_SERIAL_IE_OFFS is synchronized against
> write() callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryo Takakura <ryotkkr98@...il.com>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
What commit id does this fix?
Why does patch 1/2 need to go to stable, but patch 2/2 does not? Please
do not mix changes like this in the same series, otherwise we have to
split them up manually when we apply them to the different branches,
right?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists