Hello, Bo He, CC'ed, found a regression introduced in my patch, discussed in this thread, and submitted a patch: Subject: [PATCH] fix panic at pwq_activate_delayed_work. Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 10:14:38 +0000 Message-ID: <CD6925E8781EFD4D8E11882D20FC406D529834D2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:32:43 +0300, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hmm, that's what I remember, but we don't have that documented and dwc3 > has a sleep in its dequeue, which I need to remove for other reasons > anyway. Given the above comment from Felipe, I expected my patch would be dropped in favour of making dwc3 not sleep in dequeue, as it seems to be the actual root cause. Should my patch be reverted ? It adds complexity which, I believe, becomes superfluous if dequeue does not sleep anywhere. Or maybe non-sleeping dequeue is not there yet, and a solution right now (later revertable) is better, in which case my change would be worth fixing ? -- Vincent Pelletier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
