Jens,
please pull from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/linux-block.git for-jens
into your for-3.7/drivers branch to receive revert of patch that Sasha
Levin reported to cause NULL pointer dereferences, and it's not necessary.
Thanks!
Jiri Kosina (1):
Revert "genhd: Make put_disk() safe for disks that have not been registered"
block/genhd.c | 6 +++---
drivers/block/floppy.c | 13 +++++++++++++
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Hi guys!
This is me complaining that I still see the spews that this pull
request should fix, probably because this mail got lost.
Thanks,
Sasha
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jens,
>
> please pull from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jikos/linux-block.git for-jens
>
> into your for-3.7/drivers branch to receive revert of patch that Sasha
> Levin reported to cause NULL pointer dereferences, and it's not necessary.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jiri Kosina (1):
> Revert "genhd: Make put_disk() safe for disks that have not been registered"
>
> block/genhd.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/block/floppy.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> --
> Jiri Kosina
> SUSE Labs
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi guys!
>
> This is me complaining that I still see the spews that this pull
> request should fix, probably because this mail got lost.
You are seeing that on -next, right?
That's because a different version of the patchset has been pushed to
Linus, but for-next branch in Jens' tree still contains the old patchset
containing the faulty patch (which is never going upstream).
The fixed series is now in Linus' tree (as per -rc4), and I guess you are
not having the problem there, right?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Hi guys!
>>
>> This is me complaining that I still see the spews that this pull
>> request should fix, probably because this mail got lost.
>
> You are seeing that on -next, right?
Yup.
> That's because a different version of the patchset has been pushed to
> Linus, but for-next branch in Jens' tree still contains the old patchset
> containing the faulty patch (which is never going upstream).
>
> The fixed series is now in Linus' tree (as per -rc4), and I guess you are
> not having the problem there, right?
I haven't thought of trying just Linus's tree because I thought that
the original patch
that causes the breakage didn't make it there, so it would be obvious
that it would
work fine.
I'll give it a go I guess.
Thanks,
Sasha