On 09/23/2011 12:46 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 09:24:56PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >> Commit "TTY: serial, move locking in uart_close" moved the lock, but >> omitted to update branches which unlock the lock. Now they try to >> unlock the lock without holding it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> If possible, please, merge this into the patch mentioned above (it's >> not upstream yet). > > I can't do that, Hmm, but what is the reason for that? I mean, why do you prefer a kernel with broken history with respect to bisection? Per definition -next doesn't mind rebases in subtrees. Or is this already in tty-linus branch (I cannot check now, obviously)? > and Nobuhiro Iwamatsu sent this to me before you, so > I'll take his version instead, if you don't mind. No, I don't of course. thanks, -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
