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
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:50:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211008175027.4eg4qsrcu7nxwplv@skn-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211008180811.36c371f5@collabora.com>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:50:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211008175027.4eg4qsrcu7nxwplv@skn-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211008180811.36c371f5@collabora.com>
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
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-08 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-04 6:56 [RFC PATCH] mtd: rawnand: use mutex to protect access while in suspend Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 6:56 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 8:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-04 8:41 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-04 8:55 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 8:55 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 9:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-04 9:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-04 10:12 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 10:12 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-04 11:47 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-04 11:47 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-05 7:09 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-05 7:09 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-05 8:23 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-05 8:23 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-05 8:49 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-05 8:49 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-05 8:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-05 8:58 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-07 11:43 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-07 11:43 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-07 12:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-07 12:18 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-07 12:39 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-07 12:39 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-07 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-07 13:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 10:04 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 10:04 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 11:20 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 11:20 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 11:54 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 11:54 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 12:15 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 14:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] mtd: core: protect access to mtd devices " Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 14:38 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 15:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 15:30 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 17:31 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 17:31 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 15:35 ` Miquel Raynal
2021-10-08 15:35 ` Miquel Raynal
2021-10-08 16:08 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 16:08 ` Boris Brezillon
2021-10-08 17:50 ` Sean Nyekjaer [this message]
2021-10-08 17:50 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 14:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: rawnand: remove suspended check Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 14:38 ` Sean Nyekjaer
2021-10-08 22:05 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-08 22:05 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-08 22:47 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-08 22:47 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211008175027.4eg4qsrcu7nxwplv@skn-laptop \
--to=sean@geanix.com \
--cc=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
--cc=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.