Hello Marc,
On 09.12.20 08:45, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 12/8/20 7:07 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
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?
Yes, please take that patch directly.
The fix is in the net-tree.
Do you take this patch
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201206144731.4609-1-socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
via linux-can-next then as it is neither in can-next and net-next now ... ?
And net-next will be closed soon, I assume.
Thanks,
Oliver
