linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH rtw v4 4/4] wifi: rtw89: avoid circular locking dependency in ser_state

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: <bb36bb617cef49d7973ba92d4bd094d8@realtek.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:46:28 +0000
From: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
CC: Zong-Zhe Yang <kevin_yang@...ltek.com>,
        Bitterblue Smith
	<rtl8821cerfe2@...il.com>,
        Bernie Huang <phhuang@...ltek.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lvc-project@...uxtesting.org" <lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH rtw v4 4/4] wifi: rtw89: avoid circular locking dependency in ser_state_run()

Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, 18. Sep 05:52, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> > Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru> wrote:
> > By the way, you mark this patchset as 'rtw'. Does it mean this patchset is
> > urgent to you? If not, it will be more smooth (avoid possible merge conflict)
> > if it goes via 'rtw-next'. Let me know your preference.
> 
> The first patch of the series is rather urgent compared to the others
> because it addresses the issue occasionally banging on a working system.
> The other ones are less urgent.
> 
> TBH I'm not aware of your development process in details.  It's v6.17-rc6
> at the moment.  If I target all patches at rtw-next, are they to land in
> upcoming merge window for v6.18 release (a couple of weeks from now)?
> If yes then no hurries from me, rtw-next is ok.

It's v6.17-rc6 (-rc eve), so I don't plan to send a pull-request.

Originally I plan to send the last pull-request to v6.18 today, so I did
review this patchset yesterday to see if I can merge it before sending. 
Since only two or three minor changes are needed, I can wait a while and
send the pull-request next Monday if you can re-spin the patchset this
weekend. 

If not, I can still merge this patchset in v6.18-rc cycle to rtw tree.
However, this might cause merge conflict with -next, so I don't prefer
this. Upper maintainers need to spend extra time to resolve conflicts.