On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > though I was not able to test it with the devices we have, I remarked > a small regression in this patch: the detection of the serial protocol > is not handled anymore. I was indeed relying on the fact that the > parameter "id" in mt_probe was null to know that the device was not > already in the list of known devices. I think that this small pitfall > can be assessed in a separate commit later (after more testing) to > keep the patch clear. > > By looking at the whole code of the patch set, Acked-by: Benjamin > Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> > > I'll tell you by the end of the week if anything goes wrong with our > multitouch devices, but I don't see any reasons why it could fail. Thanks for the review. I will still wait for the mt_probe() serial protocol fix, as I'd like to be certain that what I push into for-next doesn't introduce any known regressions for which there is not a fix floating around yet. One super-minor thing I have noticed when reviewing this patchset is that we have never put a upper bound on HID_DG_CONTACTMAX as presented by the device. In an extreme potential case of (likely broken) device this might result in memory corruption in mt_probe(), as the argument of kzalloc() when allocating the slots will overflow. But this is not a regressions and has always been there, so something to fix separately. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
