On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:36:48AM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > 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. Wonderful, thanks for verifying. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
