Re: [PATCH v3] reset: core: Serialize concurrent deassert/reset of shared resets

[Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>]

On Do, 2026-10-22 at 21:31 +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> > 
[...]
> > > In short, do you have an opinion how (far) this should be backported,
> > > and does this warrant some Cc:stable tag?
> > 
> > You are right that this is only a partial fix for 0b52297f2288, and that
> > reset-gpio did not exist back then. Since the race is latent - it is only
> > reachable once a shared provider whose ops sleep exists (reset-gpio being
> > the first) - and since the patch would not apply before 8c91302a29bc1
> > ("reset: protect struct reset_control with its own mutex", v7.1) anyway, I
> > would like to drop the Fixes: tag and Cc: stable for v4 and present this as
> > a correctness improvement to the shared-reset locking. Anyone hitting it on
> > an older kernel can backport by hand. But let me know if this is acceptable.
> 
> Hi Philipp
> 
> Do you think is it ok to drop the fixes tag?

I think so, yes.

regards
Philipp