Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754136AbYJQCtT (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:49:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752074AbYJQCtI (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:49:08 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:58992 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751976AbYJQCtH (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:49:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:45:03 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andrew Morton Cc: David Brownell , avorontsov@ru.mvista.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] [patch] gpiolib: fix oops in gpio_get_value_cansleep() Message-ID: <20081017024503.GA30951@kroah.com> References: <200810160845.22281.david-b@pacbell.net> <20081016161718.e05864da.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200810161744.34005.david-b@pacbell.net> <20081016175449.4ba7ac02.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081016175449.4ba7ac02.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1679 Lines: 46 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:54:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:44:33 -0700 David Brownell wrote: > > > On Thursday 16 October 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > From: David Brownell > > > > > > > > We can get the following oops from gpio_get_value_cansleep() > > > > when a GPIO controller doesn't provide a get() callback: > > > > > > We can, but do we? ;) > > > > I think it's unlikely without the sysfs interface. > > > > > > > iow: is this needed in any -stable release? > > > > The bug has been there since 2.6.25 but nobody else seems > > to have reported it. Is the general policy to fix all > > oopses that *could* appear? I'd send it for 2.6.27-stable, > > since that's got the sysfs hooks. And older kernels if > > bug likelihood isn't a major concern. > > OK. 2.6.27 definitely (major distros are basing on that). > > As for earlier kernels: I'd say so. An oops is farily serious. > Although an oops in a sysfs handler tends to be fairly tame, as the > code usually doesn't hold locks or many allocated resources. > > Anyway - making decisions like this is why we pay stable@kernel.org the > big bucks :) "Pay"? We get paid for this in something becides a full inbox? I'm not holding my breath :) Send us the git commit id when it's in Linus's tree and we'll see what is needed to backport this or not. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/