On 17.04.2024 09:04, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:02:31AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 17.04.2024 04:34, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:57:17 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>> Binding devm_led_classdev_register() to the netdev is problematic
>>>> because on module removal we get a RTNL-related deadlock. Fix this
>>>> by avoiding the device-managed LED functions.
>>>>
>>>> Note: We can safely call led_classdev_unregister() for a LED even
>>>> if registering it failed, because led_classdev_unregister() detects
>>>> this and is a no-op in this case.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 18764b883e15 ("r8169: add support for LED's on RTL8168/RTL8101")
>>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.8.x
>>>> Reported-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Looks like I already applied one chunk of this as commit 97e176fcbbf3
>>> ("r8169: add missing conditional compiling for call to r8169_remove_leds")
>>> Is it worth throwing that in as a Fixes tag?
>>
>> This is a version of the fix modified to apply on 6.8.
>
> That was not obvious at all :(
>
Stating "Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 6.8.x" isn't sufficient?
>> It's not supposed to be applied on net / net-next.
>> Should I have sent it to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx only?
>
> Why woudlu a commit only be relevent for older kernels and not the
> latest one?
>
The fix version for 6.9-rc and next has been applied already.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
