On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 08:17:42AM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote: > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:59:37AM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> imx_uart_set_termios() called imx_uart_rts_active(), or > >> imx_uart_rts_inactive() before taking port->port.lock. > >> > >> As a consequence, sport->port.mctrl that these functions modify > >> could have been changed without holding port->port.lock. > >> > >> Moved locking of port->port.lock above the calls to fix the issue. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 24 ++++++++++++++---------- > >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > I do not review "RFC" patches as obviously the submitter doesn't think > > they are actually correct :) > > Oops! Noticed. As an excuse, there is no: "Don't put "RFC" in if you'd > like Greg to review the patch" in the submitting-patches :) You can't document everything :) > Lock-correctness is delicate matter that is hard to test, reviewing by > the experts in the filed being probably the best testing strategy > available, and thus your review, Greg, is in fact one of those I'd > especially like to achieve. Then write the patch to your satisfaction and post it without the RFC! thanks, greg k-h
