lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [stable/4.14.y PATCH 0/3] mmc: Fix a potential resource leak when shutting down request queue.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:23:04PM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 07:09:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:46:25AM -0600, Raul Rangel wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:19:34AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:55:18AM -0600, Raul E Rangel wrote:
> > > > > I think we should cherry-pick 41e3efd07d5a02c80f503e29d755aa1bbb4245de
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/856512/ into 4.14. It fixes a
> > > > > potential resource leak when shutting down the request queue.
> > > >
> > > > Potential meaning "it does happen", or "it can happen if we do this", or
> > > > just "maybe it might happen, we really do not know?"
> > > It does happen if the AMD SDHCI patches are cherry-picked into 4.14.
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/1/398
> >
> > Why are those patches somehow being required to be added to 4.14.y? If
> > they are not added, is all fine?
> I was just thinking we would backport the patches to fix this AMD SDHCI
> hardware bug, but I guess we don't need to.

Has anyone asked for those to be backported? Does anyone require them
to be? What's keeping users from using a newer kernel that have this
specific hardware issue?

Trying to apply patches to a stable kernel due to an issue that is not
even in that stable kernel is crazy. No wonder I am totally confused...

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-19 20:37    [W:0.033 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site