On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 04:16:29PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 04:04:18PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 03:30:59PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > Serdev does not use the file abstraction and specifically there will > > > > never be anyone polling a file descriptor for POLLOUT events. > > > > > > > > Just use plain wake_up_interruptible() in the write_wakeup callback and > > > > document why it's there. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/tty/serdev/serdev-ttyport.c | 3 ++- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > This patch didn't apply, perhaps because I split this series across my > > > "for-next" and "for-linus" branches? > > > > That's right, this one depends on patch 4/8. > > > > Perhaps you can take also this one through tty-linus? Or even better, > > just take the whole series through tty-linus? > > They all didn't feel like patches to go in after -rc1, right? > Documentation updates? Minor tweaks? Would you want to defend them? > :) I agree that it's borderline, but the documentation update (patch 3/8) is related to the first two bug fixes, where a negative return value from a serdev driver could have triggered those bugs, so in a sense we are fixing the docs. Patch 6 and 8 are clean ups, but the open lock clean up in patch 6 is related to the close lock fix in patch 5. Patch 7 avoids a potential crash, albeit something that would not affect any mainline drivers (as serial-core sets CLOCAL by default). But I'm perfectly fine with holding them off for 4.16. Perhaps you can just merge back rc2 and I can resubmit the final patch which didn't apply after that. Thanks, Johan -- 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
