On 2019-06-19 10:27 a.m., Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Hi Julia, everyone.
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you forward this patch to the people below if you think it is
>> appropriate?
>> From: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c:395:1-17: ERROR: switchtec_fops: .read() can deadlock .write(); change nonseekable_open -> stream_open to fix.
>>
>> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/stream_open.cocci
>>
>> Fixes: a3a1e895d4fa ("pci/switchtec: Don't use completion's wait queue")
>> Signed-off-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rt/linux-rt-devel.git linux-5.0.y-rt-rebase
This is for the RT tree? The patch in the fixes tag isn't in upstream
and I don't understand how this is related to that patch at all. It just
looks like the RT tree hasn't picked up the patch which made this change
in upstream.
I feel like I've seen the change in this patch a bunch of times already
and it appears to be correct in rc5 at least...
Logan
>> head: 31cc76d5590f5e60c2f26f029e40bc7d0441d93f
>> commit: a3a1e895d4fa0508e11ac9107ace883a5b2a4d3b [171/305] pci/switchtec: Don't use completion's wait queue
>> :::::: branch date: 6 days ago
>> :::::: commit date: 6 days ago
>>
>> Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
>>
>> switchtec.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> --- a/drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/switch/switchtec.c
>> @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ static int switchtec_dev_open(struct ino
>> return PTR_ERR(stuser);
>>
>> filp->private_data = stuser;
>> - nonseekable_open(inode, filp);
>> + stream_open(inode, filp);
>>
>> dev_dbg(&stdev->dev, "%s: %p\n", __func__, stuser);
>>
