On Sat, 2018-11-17 at 08:29 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 01:22:39PM -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > I noticed that 3.18.125 added commit bc07ee33284a ('Revert
> > "drm/i915:
> > Fix mutex->owner inspection race under DEBUG_MUTEXES"'), which
> > states
> > that the reason it can be applied is:
> >
> > The core fix was applied in
> >
> > commit a63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
> > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue Jan 6 10:29:35 2015 +0000
> >
> > mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()
> >
> > (note the absence of stable@ tag)
> >
> > so we can now revert our band-aid commit 226e5ae9e5f910 for
> > -next.
> >
> >
> > but that the commit referenced wasn't also pulled in.
> >
> > Please consider pulling that one too if you're going to do another
> > 3.18
> > stable release.
>
> Unless someone can ack that commit for stable (since it specifically
> states it shouldn't be included), I'd rather revert bc07ee33284a - it
> shouldn't have been merged in to begin with.
>
Yeah, I agree that probably makes more sense - I think I misinterpreted
the meaning of 'note the absence of stable@ tag'.
Thanks,
Tom
