Request for 3.18-stable: a63b03e2d247 ("mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()")
Hi Greg,
I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit bc07ee33284a ('Revert "drm/i915:
Fix mutex->owner inspection race under DEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which states that the reason it can be applied is:
The core fix was applied in
commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
Author: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000
mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()
(note the absence of stable@ tag)
so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for -next.
but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another 3.18 stable release.
Thanks,
Tom
Sasha Levin
maintainerQuoted 16 lines · Tom Zanussi
Hi Greg,
I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit
bc07ee33284a('Revert "drm/i915:
Fixmutex->ownerinspection race underDEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which states that the reason it can be applied is:The core fix was applied in
commit
a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
Author: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000mutex: Always clear owner field upon
mutex_unlock()(note the absence of stable@ tag)
Quoted 7 lines
so we can now revert our band-aid commit
226e5ae9e5f910for -next.but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another 3.18 stable release.
Unless someone can ack that commit for stable (since it specifically states it shouldn't be included), I'd rather revert bc07ee33284a - it shouldn't have been merged in to begin with.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Quoted 25 lines · Sasha Levin
Quoted 24 lines · Tom Zanussi
Hi Greg,
I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit
bc07ee33284a('Revert "drm/i915:
Fixmutex->ownerinspection race underDEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which states
that the reason it can be applied is:The core fix was applied in
commit
a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
Author: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000mutex: Always clear owner field upon
mutex_unlock()(note the absence of stable@ tag)
so we can now revert our band-aid commit
226e5ae9e5f910for
-next.but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another 3.18
stable release.Unless someone can ack that commit for stable (since it specifically states it shouldn't be included), I'd rather revert
bc07ee33284a- it shouldn't have been merged in to begin with.
Yeah, I agree that probably makes more sense - I think I misinterpreted the meaning of 'note the absence of stable@ tag'.
Thanks,
Tom