On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 08:52:16PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > 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)? Because it is in my tree and I can't rebase it as others depend on it (linux-next and others.) sorry, greg k-h -- 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
