On 15 March 2017 at 05:08, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:32:43PM +0000, Dave Stevenson wrote: >> NACK. >> Phil asked for a couple of changes, although functionally identical. >> I'll send a patch when I get a chance. > > What do you mean, "when I get a chance"? What's wrong with this one? I was intending on doing it today. Michael had noticed a variant of this patch in the downstream kernel and asked me if I was intending to submit upstream, in particular asking for it to come from raspberrypi becasue it was an API subtlety. I was, and have had the patch reviewed internally with mods requested/made, but he's jumped ahead of me. >> Your existing workaround has removed the immediate issue of the >> overflow, this was only cleaning things up to actually match the >> original API. > > Ok, so this patch is correct? I don't see why I shouldn't take it as it > fixes the issue. What am I missing here, why exactly are you NACKing > this? The existing patch that is already applied 85b1ac7 staging: bcm2835-camera: Fix buffer overflow calculation on query of camera properties has fixed the issue of the actual overflow. Perhaps this is me not used to the way staging works with large numbers of patches reworking stuff multiple times, in which case accept it. I'm more used to trying to get things completely right earlier. Dave _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
