On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483.
The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally
too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month).
However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired
to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring
back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael
realize this before proceeding.
I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches),
but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go
through. The fix would be easier to make after that.
OK, I'm convinced by this.
I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right?
Rafael, I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure what the protocol is for
adding stable@xxxxxxxxxx though ...
I'll take care of this, thanks!
But you aren't going to pull the in for the next release, right?
What do you mean?