On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:16:04AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> 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?
Without showing what commit id this is in Linus's tree, no.
> >> 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.
Then a hint as to what the git id of that commit is would help out a lot
here.
Thanks,
greg k-h
