Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932072AbbLBIV6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 03:21:58 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:44182 "EHLO metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752479AbbLBIV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 03:21:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:21:47 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Wilck , Peter Huewe , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter Message-ID: <20151202082147.GJ5072@pengutronix.de> References: <1448996309-15220-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201213351.GC5071@intel.com> <20151201222223.GA27480@obsidianresearch.com> <20151202081114.GA3458@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20151202081114.GA3458@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:67c:670:100:1d::c0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1888 Lines: 50 Hello, Cc += gregkh On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:11:14AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:22:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me > > > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when > > > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4? > > > > > > I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about "where > > > to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in both > > > places. > > > > I'm also confused by that.. > > > > It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should > > we fix this by using Martin's patch? > > > > These changes are complex enough they really shouldn't go into 4.4 > > unless absolutely necessary. > > The reasons I'm asking this are: > > * I'm planning to do v4.5 pull request soon. > * If this need to be get this into v4.4, we should act fast. Given the > complexity of the changes I'd not recommend that unless it is a life > and death question. I'd say we should repair b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that dev_pm_domain callbacks are called unconditionally") for 4.4-rc$next and live with the problem that the tpm driver had since long another release. The fix is already available, just some minor nitpicking regarding the commit log has still to be resolved. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/