3.0-stable patches

added patches:
	acpi-ac-prevent-oops-on-some-boxes-due-to-missing-check-power_supply_register-return-value-check.patch
	btrfs-call-the-ordered-free-operation-without-any-locks-held.patch

diff --git a/queue-3.0/acpi-ac-prevent-oops-on-some-boxes-due-to-missing-check-power_supply_register-return-value-check.patch b/queue-3.0/acpi-ac-prevent-oops-on-some-boxes-due-to-missing-check-power_supply_register-return-value-check.patch
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..573644f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/queue-3.0/acpi-ac-prevent-oops-on-some-boxes-due-to-missing-check-power_supply_register-return-value-check.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+From f197ac13f6eeb351b31250b9ab7d0da17434ea36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
+Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:29:16 +0800
+Subject: ACPI/AC: prevent OOPS on some boxes due to missing check power_supply_register() return value check
+
+From: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
+
+commit f197ac13f6eeb351b31250b9ab7d0da17434ea36 upstream.
+
+In the ac.c, power_supply_register()'s return value is not checked.
+
+As a result, the driver's add() ops may return success
+even though the device failed to initialize.
+
+For example, some BIOS may describe two ACADs in the same DSDT.
+The second ACAD device will fail to register,
+but ACPI driver's add() ops returns sucessfully.
+The ACPI device will receive ACPI notification and cause OOPS.
+
+https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=772730
+
+Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
+Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+---
+ drivers/acpi/ac.c |    4 +++-
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
+
+--- a/drivers/acpi/ac.c
++++ b/drivers/acpi/ac.c
+@@ -292,7 +292,9 @@ static int acpi_ac_add(struct acpi_devic
+       ac->charger.properties = ac_props;
+       ac->charger.num_properties = ARRAY_SIZE(ac_props);
+       ac->charger.get_property = get_ac_property;
+-      power_supply_register(&ac->device->dev, &ac->charger);
++      result = power_supply_register(&ac->device->dev, &ac->charger);
++      if (result)
++              goto end;
+ 
+       printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX "%s [%s] (%s)\n",
+              acpi_device_name(device), acpi_device_bid(device),

diff --git a/queue-3.0/btrfs-call-the-ordered-free-operation-without-any-locks-held.patch b/queue-3.0/btrfs-call-the-ordered-free-operation-without-any-locks-held.patch
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..4bf8d87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/queue-3.0/btrfs-call-the-ordered-free-operation-without-any-locks-held.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+From e9fbcb42201c862fd6ab45c48ead4f47bb2dea9d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
+Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:57:13 -0400
+Subject: Btrfs: call the ordered free operation without any locks held
+
+From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
+
+commit e9fbcb42201c862fd6ab45c48ead4f47bb2dea9d upstream.
+
+Each ordered operation has a free callback, and this was called with the
+worker spinlock held.  Josef made the free callback also call iput,
+which we can't do with the spinlock.
+
+This drops the spinlock for the free operation and grabs it again before
+moving through the rest of the list.  We'll circle back around to this
+and find a cleaner way that doesn't bounce the lock around so much.
+
+Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+---
+ fs/btrfs/async-thread.c |    9 ++++++++-
+ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
+
+--- a/fs/btrfs/async-thread.c
++++ b/fs/btrfs/async-thread.c
+@@ -212,10 +212,17 @@ static noinline int run_ordered_completi
+ 
+               work->ordered_func(work);
+ 
+-              /* now take the lock again and call the freeing code */
++              /* now take the lock again and drop our item from the list */
+               spin_lock(&workers->order_lock);
+               list_del(&work->order_list);
++              spin_unlock(&workers->order_lock);
++
++              /*
++               * we don't want to call the ordered free functions
++               * with the lock held though
++               */
+               work->ordered_free(work);
++              spin_lock(&workers->order_lock);
+       }
+ 
+       spin_unlock(&workers->order_lock);

diff --git a/queue-3.0/series b/queue-3.0/series
index 4b646a3b4583158cc7947068fef2aab0c7754695..3a2602063933460cc4e5039062461ba4b2d70294 100644 (file)
--- a/queue-3.0/series
+++ b/queue-3.0/series
@@ -15,3 +15,5 @@ locks-fix-checking-of-fcntl_setlease-argument.patch
 ftrace-disable-function-tracing-during-suspend-resume-and-hibernation-again.patch
 stable-update-references-to-older-2.6-versions-for-3.x.patch
 workqueue-perform-cpu-down-operations-from-low-priority-cpu_notifier.patch
+acpi-ac-prevent-oops-on-some-boxes-due-to-missing-check-power_supply_register-return-value-check.patch
+btrfs-call-the-ordered-free-operation-without-any-locks-held.patch