On Wed, 1 May 2013, David Rientjes wrote: > > Don't acquire ashmem_mutex in ashmem_shrink if we've somehow recursed into the > > shrinker code from within ashmem. Just bail out, avoiding a deadlock. This is > > fine, as ashmem cache pruning is advisory anyhow. > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Love <rlove@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Any reason not to send this to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if it fixes an > observable deadlock? (It's annotated to be applied to linux-next, but I > don't see any differences between it and Linus's tree.) > This was sent separately to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx before being merged into Linus's tree . Greg, could this be queued up for 3.10 with a cc to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
