On 03.09.2022 20:23:29, Jimmy Assarsson wrote:
> This patch series was originally posted by Anssi Hannula [1].
> In v2 I rebased and updated some of the patches [2].
One of the net subsystem maintainers wasn't happy with the patch series,
he requested:
On 20.09.2022 12:22:46, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> These are large patches which don't clearly justify the classification
>> as a fix. Patches 6 and 8 for example leave me asking "what does this
>> fix?" It's good to report errors, but the absence of error reporting
>> is not necessarily a bug worthy of stable.
>>
>> Can we get the commit messages beefed up?
Note: As your patches were part of a bigger series the patch numbers are
as following:
| [PATCH net 05/17] can: kvaser_usb: Fix possible completions during init_completion
| [PATCH net 06/17] can: kvaser_usb: kvaser_usb_leaf: Get capabilities from device
| [PATCH net 07/17] can: kvaser_usb: kvaser_usb_leaf: Rename {leaf,usbcan}_cmd_error_event to {leaf,usbcan}_cmd_can_error_event
| [PATCH net 08/17] can: kvaser_usb: kvaser_usb_leaf: Handle CMD_ERROR_EVENT
| [PATCH net 09/17] can: kvaser_usb_leaf: Set Warning state even without bus errors
Can you distill the absolute minimum patches the fix (serious) bugs and
re-post them with stable on Cc. The other patches should go via can-next
to net-next. Post them in a separate series. If they depend on the
fixes, please mention that in the cover letter. I can take the as soon
as the net tree is merged back to net-next.
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
