> -----Original Message----- > From: kvalo=codeaurora.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <kvalo=codeaurora.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kalle > Valo > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 2:17 PM > To: Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tiwai@xxxxxxx; Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] rtw89: fix crash when loading firmware file on certain platforms > > Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > First patch is to avoid writing "partition size" on read-only firmware > > buffer, so it has to fix the crash. > > The later two patches are used to make the semantics clear, but they don't > > change the logic at all. > > > > I hope at least first patch can be taken into 5.16-rc, so people can avoid > > this crash. > > > > v2: Add Buglink and Tested-by tags. > > > > Ping-Ke Shih (3): > > rtw89: update partition size of firmware header on skb->data > > rtw89: add const in the cast of le32_get_bits() > > rtw89: use inline function instead macro to set H2C and CAM > > > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/cam.h | 468 ++++-- > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/fw.h | 1768 ++++++++++++--------- > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/txrx.h | 46 +- > > 4 files changed, 1370 insertions(+), 914 deletions(-) > > Patch 1 should definitely go to wireless-drivers to fix the crash. But > I'm not sure about patches 2-3, they are quite large, and more like > cleanup than fixes, so wireless-drivers-next sounds more approriate to > me. But I can't decide, any thoughts on this? Without patches 2-3, "future" hotfixes may be hard to merge, but I don't know if it will happen. My question is how I can deal with hotfix that can't auto merge; maybe, I can prepare separate patch, correct? If so, I think we can only take patch 1 to wireless-drivers. -- Ping-Ke
