On Wed May 29, 2024 at 3:32 PM EEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.05.2024 14:26, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed May 29, 2024 at 10:47 AM EEST, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Has this possibly fallen through the cracks?
> >
> > Not possibly that is what exactly has happened, sorry.
> >
> > I tweaked a bit the commit message:
> >
> > commit 2c0943eba0bd765e1e4a90234e669a26a9304b74 (HEAD -> master)
> > Author: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed May 29 15:23:25 2024 +0300
> >
> > tpm_tis: Do *not* flush uninitialized work
> >
> > tpm_tis_core_init() may fail before tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() is
> > called, in which case tpm_tis_remove() unconditionally calling
> > flush_work() is triggering a warning for .func still being NULL.
> >
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v6.5+
> > Fixes: 481c2d14627d ("tpm,tpm_tis: Disable interrupts after 1000 unhandled IRQs")
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Does this make sense to you?
>
> Sure, that's entirely up to you.
Ok, cool, it should mirror soon to linux-next. Earliest time to PR it is
next week (rc3) because I sent one already yesterday.
> Jan
BR, Jarkko
