On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:54:28 +0100 Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > On 05.12.20 22:09, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:56:33 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > >> On 12/5/20 9:33 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >>>> What about the (incremental?) change that Thomas Wagner posted? > >>>> > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201204135557.55599-1-thwa1@xxxxxx > >>> > >>> That settles it :) This change needs to got into -next and 5.11. > >> > >> Ok. Can you take patch 1, which is a real fix: > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201204133508.742120-2-mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Sure! Applied that one from the ML (I assumed that's what you meant). > > I just double-checked this mail and in fact the second patch from Marc's > pull request was a real fix too: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201204133508.742120-3-mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Ack, I thought it was a fix to some existing code but it's a fix to ISO-TP so we should probably get it in before someone start depending on existing behavior - Marc should I apply that one directly, too? > Btw. the missing feature which was added for completeness of the ISOTP > implementation has now also integrated the improvement suggested by > Thomas Wagner: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201206144731.4609-1-socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > > Would be cool if it could go into the initial iso-tp contribution as > 5.10 becomes a long-term kernel. > > But I don't want to be pushy - treat it as your like. I think Linus wants to release 5.10 so that the merge window doesn't overlap with Christmas too much. Let's not push our luck.
