Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 12:17:59 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Aditya Shankar <aditya.shankar@microchip.com>
Cc: ganesh.krishna@microchip.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "staging: wilc1000: Replace kthread with
 workqueue for host interface"
Message-ID: <20161006101759.GA7799@kroah.com>
References: <20160930101318.GA24973@aditya-ubuntu.local>
 <20160930132215.GB3016@kroah.com>
 <20161006152659.15a4c38b1dc8d4f781c20e0a@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161006152659.15a4c38b1dc8d4f781c20e0a@microchip.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1578
Lines: 44

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 03:26:59PM +0530, Aditya Shankar wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:22:15 +0200
> Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:43:18PM +0530, Aditya Shankar wrote:
> > > This reverts commit 2518ac59eb27 ("staging: wilc1000: Replace kthread
> > > with workqueue for host interface")
> > > 
> > > This commit breaks wilc1000 driver init. A crash was seen
> > > everytime the wlan interface was brought up and wilc device
> > > open was attempted. This change is being reverted until we
> > > figure out the problem in this change. The driver is
> > > usable now with this change reverted.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Aditya Shankar <Aditya.Shankar@microchip.com>
> > > 
> > > Conflicts:
> > > 	drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c
> > 
> > What is this line doing here?
> > 
> > And shouldn't we add a cc: stable tag as well?  Or at the least, put a
> > "fixes:" tag to let people know exactly what commit it is fixing (the
> > id that it is reverting.)
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Apologies for this bad commit message.
> 
> I have an update on this wilc1000 crash issue. I've figured out
> the cause for the crash and fixed it. Therefore,
> I request you to ignore the patch I sent out to
> revert the change causing the regression. The cause was a misplaced
> call to destroy workqueue soon after creating it.
> With this removed, the issue is not seen.
> 
> I will send out a separate patch to fix the issue.

Wonderful, thanks for doing that, I'll drop these and use your fix when
you send it.

greg k-h