On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:19:53AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:17:48AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > This patch changes the lock ordering (behavior change) and it's not > > described in the changelog. Please figure out which way is the correct > > ordering and resend. > > Actually the original ordering was obviously correct. You can't take > a mutex if you are holding a spinlock. So it always has to be: > > mutex_lock(); > spin_lock(); > > spin_unlock(); > mutext_unlock(); > Oh, hm... You could take a mutex with trylock I suppose. That would be safe. Anyway, I just saw that you sent a v2 patch. When you send a v2 patch, then you *must* send a reply to the original thread. Greg has thousands and thousands of messages in his inbox and he applies patches in chronological order. So he will apply this one because it has not responses then get to the v2 patch and try to apply that one as well which will fail. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
