On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 07:29:13AM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: > Hi, > > On 10-10-2020 12:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:50:29PM +0530, Anant Thazhemadam wrote: > >> While finding usb endpoints in vmk80xx_find_usb_endpoints(), check if > >> wMaxPacketSize = 0 for the endpoints found. > >> > >> Some devices have isochronous endpoints that have wMaxPacketSize = 0 > >> (as required by the USB-2 spec). > >> However, since this doesn't apply here, wMaxPacketSize = 0 can be > >> considered to be invalid. > >> > >> Reported-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Tested-by: syzbot+009f546aa1370056b1c2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Signed-off-by: Anant Thazhemadam <anant.thazhemadam@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > You sent 2 patches with the same subject, which one is the "latest" one? > > This patch (that you have replied to) is the "latest" one. > > > Please always version your patches and put below the --- line what > > changed from the previous version, so that maintainers have a chance to > > know which to accept... > > The other patch (with the same subject line) wasn't supposed to be sent out. > I realized there was a coding style error in that while sending, and cancelled > sending it, but it got sent nonetheless. > I would have included a v2 tag in this patch itself, but I didn't realize that the > previous one got sent until afterwards. :( > I'm sorry for that. > > > Can you fix this up and send a v3? > > Shouldn't I resend this patch as a v2 instead? Since there wouldn't be any > changes from v2 (this patch) to v3 otherwise (unless of course, somebody could > suggest some more changes that could be made to this patch itself). The change would be that you are correctly listing the version information, so it would be v3 :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
