On (12/12/18 14:36), Petr Mladek wrote: > > OK, really didn't know that! I wasn't Cc-ed on that AUTOSEL email, > > and I wasn't Cc-ed on this whole discussion and found it purely > > accidentally while browsing linux-mm list. > > I am sorry that I did not CC you. There were so many people in CC. > I expected that all people mentioned in the related commit message > were included by default. No worries! I'm not blaming anyone. > > So if you are willing to backport this set to -stable, then I wouldn't > > mind, probably would be more correct if we don't advertise this as a > > "panic() deadlock fix" > > This should not be a problem. I guess that stable does not modify > the original commit messages unless there is a change. Agreed. > > In the meantime, I can add my Acked-by to this backport if it helps. > > I am fine with back-porting the patches now. They have got much more > testing in the meantime and nobody reported any regression. They > seems to help in more situations than we expected. Finally, there is > someone requesting the backport who spent non-trivial time > on tracking the problem and testing. Great! Sasha, here is Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> from me. And expect another backport request in 1 or 2 weeks - the patch which eliminates the existing "panic CPU != uart_port lock owner CPU" limitation. -ss
