On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 04:11:31PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
Odd, I missed that I had already applied the first one, nevermind, that
one is correct, this one was wrong :)
thanks,
greg k-h
