Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker()

[PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> · 2014-09-16
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> · 2014-09-17
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> · 2014-09-17
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> · 2014-09-17
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> · 2014-09-17
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> · 2014-09-19
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> · 2014-09-19
Re: [PATCH] UBI: Fix possible deadlock in erase_worker() · Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> · 2014-09-19

From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Date: 2014-09-19 10:47:41
Also in: lkml

On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 11:46 +0200, Richard Weinberg

Or we apply "[PATCH 1/2] UBI: Call worker functions without work_sem held". :)

But I explained in the other e-mail that the semaphore is needed, and
why.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy