On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Lv Zheng <zetalog@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patchset improves ACPICA intepreter lock order fixes. Including > several urgent regression fixes [PATCH 0-3]. OK, thanks! So patches [4-6/6] appear to be cleanups and I'd prefer them to be applied in a usual way (ie. via the upstream ACPICA). I'd like to take the [1-3/6] as fixes for 4.9-rc3 though, but for that I need you to tell me which mainline kernel commits are fixed by them. IOW, what should I put into the Fixes: tags. [In the future, if you post a regression fix, please always add a FIxes: tag to it pointing to the commit being fixed.] > Patches tested with customized ACPI table where _PS0/_PS3 methods are > customized to invoke a serialized control method which creates named > objects. When pm_async=yes, AE_ALREADY_EXISTS can be seen in suspend/resume > process. This is an existing issue, triggered in 4.9-rc1 by ACPICA > interpreter lock order fixes, and can be fixed by [PATCH 1] in this series. > > Lv Zheng (6): > ACPICA: Dispatcher: Fix order issue of method termination > ACPICA: Dispatcher: Fix an unbalanced lock exit path in > acpi_ds_auto_serialize_method() > ACPICA: Dispatcher: Tune interpreter lock around > acpi_ev_initialize_region() > ACPICA: Events: Cleanup acpi_ev_initialize_region() > ACPICA: Tables: Cleanup acpi_tb_install_and_load_table() > ACPICA: Tables: Add acpi_tb_unload_table() Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
