Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:50:27 +0200
From:   Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: core: protect access to mtd devices while
 in suspend
Message-ID: <20211008175027.4eg4qsrcu7nxwplv@skn-laptop>
References: <20211008141524.20ca8219@collabora.com>
 <20211008143825.3717116-1-sean@geanix.com>
 <20211008173526.19745a10@xps13>
 <20211008180811.36c371f5@collabora.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211008180811.36c371f5@collabora.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:35:26 +0200
> Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> 
> > > into suspend. But it's actually "mtd: rawnand: Simplify the locking" that
> > > allows it to return errors rather than locking, before that commit it would
> > > have waited for the rawnand device to resume.  
> > 
> > I don't think so, I believe it was broken in the same way but was just
> > not returning errors.
> 
> Actually I was wrong, 013e6292aaf5 ("mtd: rawnand: Simplify the
> locking") removed the blocking wait (returning -EBUSY when the device
> is suspended instead of putting the thread on a waitqueue). At that
> time, I assumed all threads would be paused when the device is
> suspended, which appeared to be incorrect. So I guess the Fixes tag
> should remain, and we might want to consider backporting a less
> invasive patch to stable releases (one touching only the raw NAND
> layer).

Thanks Miquel add Reviewed-By you on the second patch.

I'll remove the mentioning of commit ef347c0cfd61
("mtd: rawnand: gpmi: Implement exec_op") in this commit msg.

Is it possible to backport another(less invasive) patch to stable
releases? I thought only upstream commits could be backported.

/Sean