fix for CRTC mutex corruption

[Ilija Hadzic]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> Oh right, I've forgotten that between the review and writing the mail
> ;-) I guess we could try to bend the stable rules a bit and just
> submit all 6. It's a regression fix after all, and at least personally
> I prefer the most minimal backports to avoid diverging between
> upstream and stable kernel branches.
>
> But I guess that's Dave's call to make.
>

How about taking the patch series into drm-next and marking patch #6 only 
with CC: stable@ and specifying hashes of the prerequisite 5 patches for 
cherry-pick?

I think that is fully compliant with stable rules (at least that's my 
understanding of line 41 of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt) and 
would not be bending anything.

I presume that if this is acceptable, Dave would have to add stable@ tags 
for cherry-picking because hash values may change in his tree if drm-next 
changes relative to my base (which is state of drm-next as of yesterday 
PM).

-- Ilija