On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:18:52AM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:58:58PM -0400, Sherry Yang wrote: >> >> Use binder_alloc struct's mm_struct rather than getting >> >> a reference to the mm struct through get_task_mm to >> >> avoid a potential deadlock between lru lock, task lock and >> >> dentry lock, since a thread can be holding the task lock >> >> and the dentry lock while trying to acquire the lru lock. >> >> >> >> Acked-by: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sherry Yang <sherryy@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> drivers/android/binder_alloc.c | 22 +++++++++------------- >> >> drivers/android/binder_alloc.h | 1 - >> >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >> > >> > I've applied these first 2 patches, but patches 3 and 4 I have already >> > applied to my char-misc-next tree, right? >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > greg k-h >> >> I would expect you got a merge conflict from one of those. Using patch >> 3 and 4 in from this patchset should avoid that conflict if your >> eventual 4.15 branch is not based on your current char-misc-next >> branch. > > I've resolved the merge conflict so my char-misc-next branch should be > all caught up now. It would be wonderful if you could verify this. > > thanks, > > greg k-h I have not tested your branch directly, but the relevant code in char-misc-next is now identical to the code I tested. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
