Do the ax25_list_lock, ax25_dev_lock, linkfail_lockreally, ax25_frag_lock and
listen_lock have to be bh-safe?
Do the netrom and rose locks have to be bh-safe?
A device might be deleted after lookup in the SIOCADDRT ioctl but before it's
being used.
Routes to a device being taken down might be deleted by ax25_rt_device_down
but added by somebody else before the device has been deleted fully.
The ax25_rt_find_route synopsys is pervert but I somehow had to deal with
the race caused by the static variable in it's previous implementation.
Implement proper socket locking in netrom and rose.
Check socket locking when ax25_rcv is sending to raw sockets. In particular
ax25_send_to_raw() seems fishy. Heck - ax25_rcv is fishy.
Handle XID and TEST frames properly.
logo'/>
regulator: fixed: Revert support for ACPI interface
This reverts commit 13bed58ce874 (regulator: fixed: add support for ACPI
interface).
While there does appear to be a practical need to manage regulators on ACPI
systems, using ad-hoc properties to describe regulators to the kernel presents
a number of problems (especially should ACPI gain first class support for such
things), and there are ongoing discussions as to how to manage this.
Until there is a rough consensus, revert commit 13bed58ce8748d43, which hasn't
been in a released kernel yet as discussed in [1] and the surrounding thread.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170125184949.x2wkoo7kbaaajkjk@sirena.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>