On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:01:29PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
> Re-sending the email, the previous one was bounced, sorry for the noise.
>
> Hi Greg, thanks for reviewing.
>
> On mié, ago 30 2023 at 12:13:44, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Did you mean to loose the indentation here?
>
> This output has probably gone through some processing before I got it,
> so that's likely the cause. I don't have access to the original output,
> sorry. If I need to fix something for a v2 I can try to re-format it to
> add the indentation back in.
>
> > What commit id does this fix?
>
> This isn't linked to a particular single commit, it fixes the same
> problem in different parts of the code, introduced by different commits
> over time. The starting point for the fix was the crash output in the
> commit message but, for additional context, these are the original
> commits that introduced the unguarded struct accesses:
>
> 0cdd49a1d1a4 ("usb: Support USB 3.1 extended port status request")
> 51e0a0120661 ("USB: Calculate USB 3.0 exit latencies for LPM.")
> 25cd2882e2fc ("usb/xhci: Change how we indicate a host supports Link PM.")
> 0299809be415 ("usb: core: Track SuperSpeed Plus GenXxY")
> ae8963adb4ad ("usb: Don't enable LPM if the exit latency is zero.")
As all of these are older than the oldest supported LTS kernel, we
should be fine in taking it all the way back to 4.14.y then.
I'll queue this up after 6.6-rc1 is out, thanks.
greg k-h
