On Thursday, August 13, 2015 09:17:44 AM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 03:20:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 06:03:57 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:05:55AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Monday, May 18, 2015 07:56:45 PM Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 09:11:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 16 December 2014 at 04:39, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Well, here's a patch which I'm running on top of 3.18 at the moment,
which is basically what I described in my email, and I'm running with it
and it is without any lockdep complaint.

We need two separate patches now, one for 3.18 and other one for 3.19-rc.
3.19 has see lots of changes in this particular file and so we need to
change few things here.

What happened with this?  I'm still carrying the patch.

This should go in through the thermal tree.  Eduardo?

Having waited a long time for any kind of response from Eduardo, I've
given up.  My conclusion is that Eduardo isn't interested in this.

I've re-checked, and the AB-BA deadlock is still there in the latest
code.  So, I've taken it upon myself to throw this into my for-next
branch to force the issue - not something I _want_ to do, but I'm doing
this out of frustration.  It's clear to me that "playing nice" by email
does _not_ work with some people.

I'm rather hoping that Stephen reports a merge conflict with linux-next
this evening to highlight this situation.  I've added additional commentry
to the commit message on the patch giving the reason why I've done this,
and the relevant message IDs showing the past history.

I've not decided whether I'm going to ask Linus to take this patch
directly or not, that rather depends whether there's any co-operation
from Eduardo on this.  I'd rather Eduardo took the patch.

The patch I have has had to be updated again for changes to the driver,
but I really don't see the point of re-posting it just for it to be
ignored yet again.

I'm really disappointed by this dysfunctional state of affairs, and
that what should be an urgent fix for an observable problem is still
not merged some nine months after it was first identified.

I guess it might help if you sent the updated patch in a new thread.

That I doubt.  Eduardo has not bothered to reply at _any_ time.  I
have to question whether there is anyone even reading that email
address, or whether it's a redirect to /dev/null.  All the evidence I
have right now is that this Eduardo is a ficticous character.

I would have at least expected some complaints when I said "I've put
it in linux-next" but... absolutely nothing.

So... my only conclusion is that you're all pulling my leg that there
_is_ this "Eduardo" maintainer who's supposed to be taking patches for
this stuff.

Well, that's the situation as per MAINTAINERS today.  You seem to be concerned
that it may not reflect the reality, but in that case I can only recommend
sending a patch against MAINTAINERS to remove Eduardo from there.

As I've said, I'm not bothering with this anymore, it's just far too
much effort to play these stupid games.

I'm not sure what you mean by "these stupid games" here.

The deadlock can stay for all I care.

Fair enough.

Thanks,
Rafael