On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 01:26:02PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 06:21:24PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 11:34:43AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 05:11:04PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patch below does not apply to the 6.0-stable tree.
> > > > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > > > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > > > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> > > >
> > > > Possible dependencies:
> > > >
> > > > 41fd1cb61514 ("media: mceusb: Use new usb_control_msg_*() routines")
> > >
> > > Greg:
> > >
> > > I can submit a patch for the -stable trees that fixes the problem
> > > reported by syzbot without converting the mceusb driver to use the new
> > > usb_control_msg_*() routines. Would that be okay? Or do you prefer
> > > simply not to include this patch (which merely fixes a warning) in the
> > > stable kernels?
> >
> > If it's just a warning, no need to really worry about it. But note that
> > the usb_control_msg_*() functions are in 5.10.y and newer kernels, so
> > maybe just do this using the real functions for 5.15 and 6.0?
>
> Now I'm getting puzzled. I just took a look at
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/drivers/media/rc/mceusb.c?h=linux-5.10.y
>
> and the same with "5.15" or "6.0" in place of "5.10", and in all three
> of them this patch has already been applied! They are commits
> 587f793c64d9, 75913c562f5b, and 608e58a0f461 respectively.
>
> So it looks like there really is no problem except that for some reason
> your scripts are trying to apply patches to -stable trees which already
> contain them.
Ah, this one I had to apply before it hit linux-next due to issues with
Mauro's delay at the time.
Sorry about that, all is good.
greg k-h
