On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:00:42AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > index 7ea80779a0e2..0489bec4fded 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > @@ -2033,7 +2033,7 @@ ssize_t mei_cl_write(struct mei_cl *cl, struct mei_cl_cb *cb, unsigned long time
> > hbuf_slots = mei_hbuf_empty_slots(dev);
> > if (hbuf_slots < 0) {
> > rets = -EOVERFLOW;
> > - goto out;
> > + goto err;
>
> Please prove that this is correct, as based on the code logic, it seems
> very wrong. I can't take this unless the code is tested properly.
Hi Greg,
When Su Hui sent the v2 patch you sent an auto response about adding
stable to the CC list.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2023112042-napped-snoring-b766@gregkh/
However, it appears that you still applied the v2 patch. It's in
linux-next as commit ee6236027218 ("misc: mei: client.c: fix problem of
return '-EOVERFLOW' in mei_cl_write").
When I use `git am` to apply this patch, then it doesn't apply. However,
when I use cat email.txt | patch -p1 then it tries to reverse the patch
and apply it to a different function.
So this a kind of confusing thing.
regards,
dan carpenter
