On 06.09.2023 00:59, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Heiner, > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 01:35:10PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> On 05.09.2023 11:11, Andi Shyti wrote: >>> Hi Jean, >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:12:43AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: >>>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 22:10:52 +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >>>>> Currently we set SMBHSTCNT_LAST_BYTE only after the host has started >>>>> receiving the last byte. If we get e.g. preempted before setting >>>>> SMBHSTCNT_LAST_BYTE, the host may be finished with receiving the byte >>>>> before SMBHSTCNT_LAST_BYTE is set. >>>>> Therefore change the code to set SMBHSTCNT_LAST_BYTE before writing >>>>> SMBHSTSTS_BYTE_DONE for the byte before the last byte. Now the code >>>>> is also consistent with what we do in i801_isr_byte_done(). >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Note for Wolfram: checkpatch says we should insert here: >>>> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/20230828152747.09444625@endymion.delvare/ >>> >>> does this also need a Fixes: tag? I tried to check it, but there >>> was an intricate jungle of commits in these lines. >>> >> Quoting Jean from previous communication about this patch: >> As far as I see, the race condition already existed when the kernel >> switched to git, so there's no point in having a Fixes statement. > > true... I forgot about this comment. > > Anyway I think that this should, then, go to all the stable > kernels and I believe that without the Fixes tag this will never > be picked up. > Then we may have to set the Fixes tag to the following? 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2") Plus a comment that the issue existed before already. > Maybe Greg can advise here. > I *think* Greg (or a bot of him) would complain when receiving something for stable w/o a Fixes tag. > Would you mind resending this patch Cc'eing the stable kernel and > adding a note after the '---'? > OK > Andi > >>> Anyway, you can add: >>> >>> Acked-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andi >>
