On 2023/12/4 21:17, Greg KH wrote:
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 :)
Hi,
Oh, sorry...
I'm not familiar with mei device, I send this v3 patch because of Sasha'
s suggestion.[1]
Could Sasha give some advice about this ?
Thanks a lot :)
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CY5PR11MB63668F464A281A239FA12B6AEDBDA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
