On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:09:04AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:03:54AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:54:40AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 10:47, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:30:55AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 10:15, <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tty: serial: qcom-geni-serial: stop operations in progress at shutdown > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at: > > > > > > > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The filename of the patch is: > > > > > > > tty-serial-qcom-geni-serial-stop-operations-in-progress-at-shutdown.patch > > > > > > > and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > > > > > > > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > as discussed last week - this needs to be dropped from stable branches. > > > > > > > > > > Really? We have a fix now in Linus's tree, and I just took that as > > > > > well. Should that also be dropped? > > > > > > > > > > confused, > > > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > Cc'ing Johan. > > > > > > > > If the fix is commit 9aff74cc4e9e ("serial: qcom-geni: fix console > > > > shutdown hang") then both can be dropped from stable branches as doing > > > > anything on shutdown is only needed with DMA support which only got > > > > into mainline at v6.3-rc1. > > > > > > Yes, it is better to drop both in this case as calling stop_tx() for > > > non-console ports could cause trouble on earlier kernels. > > > > Ok, will drop both, but note, Johan had marked the later one for cc: > > stable which is what caused this to happen, I was just trying to do what > > he asked for :) > > Heh, actually that was you who added that. :) > > I noticed a while after you applied the that you for some reason marked > it for stable even though I had left it out on purpose as the offending > patch was not was not supposed to be backported (the latter did > unfortunately have a Fixes tag so perhaps that was why you tagged the > fix). Ah, ok, fair enough, my fault, you are right. :)
