On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:01:56AM +0000, Liuye wrote: > >--- > >V10 -> V11: Revert to V9 > >V9 -> V10 : Add Signed-off-by of Greg KH and Andy Shevchenko, Acked > > by of Daniel Thompson > >V8 -> V9: Modify call trace format and move irq_work.h before module.h > >V7 -> V8: Update the description information and comments in the code. > > : Submit this patch based on version linux-6.9-rc2. > >V6 -> V7: Add comments in the code. > >V5 -> V6: Replace with a more professional and accurate answer. > >V4 -> V5: Answer why schedule another work in the irq_work and not do > > the job directly. > >V3 -> V4: Add changelogs > >V2 -> V3: Add description information > >V1 -> V2: using irq_work to solve this properly. > >--- > > What is the current status of PATCH V11? Are there any additional > modifications needed? I understood that is blocked pending outcome of the legal matters raised by v10... and that this is why you were asked not to post v11 until they had been resolved. To be honest given that [I wrote all of the C code][1] for the most recent version of the patch and that I'd like to see the bug fixed, then I will probably have to give up on co-authorship. Instead I can post my code with a new comment and patch description and credit you with a Reported-by:. That should take the pressure off in terms of landing this bug fix. However, the legal issues do still need to be resolved or there is a risk that other upstream contributions from your company will be delayed. Daniel. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240314130916.GE202685@xxxxxxxxx/
