On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:22:18AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > 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? Yes, I'll handle all of this properly, thanks. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
