Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761587Ab3EAPy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2013 11:54:56 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:35661 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761541Ab3EAPyv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2013 11:54:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 08:54:49 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Robert Love cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Shankar Brahadeeswaran , Dan Carpenter , LKML , Bjorn Bringert , devel , Hugh Dickins , Anjana V Kumar , Andrew Morton , linux-next Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem_shrink deadlock. In-Reply-To: <1367416573-5430-1-git-send-email-rlove@google.com> Message-ID: References: <1367416573-5430-1-git-send-email-rlove@google.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 750 Lines: 16 On Wed, 1 May 2013, Robert Love wrote: > Don't acquire ashmem_mutex in ashmem_shrink if we've somehow recursed into the > shrinker code from within ashmem. Just bail out, avoiding a deadlock. This is > fine, as ashmem cache pruning is advisory anyhow. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Love Any reason not to send this to stable@vger.kernel.org if it fixes an observable deadlock? (It's annotated to be applied to linux-next, but I don't see any differences between it and Linus's tree.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/