> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-wireless-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-wireless-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Finger > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 11:24 AM > To: Tony Chuang > Cc: Pkshih; Andy Huang; briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx; > linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] rtw88: mac80211 driver for Realtek 802.11ac > wireless network chips > > On 1/28/19 8:15 PM, Tony Chuang wrote: > >> Tony, > >> > >> I had not tested rtw88 for some time, so I built a kernel with the V3 patches > and > >> found that rtw88 crashed with a NULL pointer dereference. I did some > >> debugging and found that the problem was in routine > rtw_chip_efuse_enable() > >> where fw->firmware was NULL. > >> > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > This NULL pointer was found months ago and has been fixed already. > > Thanks for your test :). > > I am holding the patch to fix it for the next patchsets. > > > > BTW, since rtw88 has not been accepted, could I send next patch set based on > > this patch set as long as I explicitly mark that the next patch is based on the > previous one? > > Thanks! > > You need to have that patch in whatever version is merged into the wireless > tree. It would not look very good for the initial version to crash every users > computer. > > Yes, I would merge EVERY patch that you have pending into the source and > submit V4. Hi Larry, But here I am holding almost 40 patches, some of them are common major fixes. The rest of them are to enhance and stabilize 8822C. >From the initial submit to now, 8822C has many fixes. Because we tested a lot for developing 8822C and we have many parameter changes for it. I am not sure should I merge every patch into the original patch set. We will have huge difference to the original patch set, means extra effort for review. But I can filter out the less important patches (will be like around 20, still many). How do you think? Thanks. Yan-Hsuan
