> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 发送时间: 2024年11月9日 19:47
> 收件人: Rex Nie <rex.nie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 抄送: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Angus Chen
> <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 主题: Re: 答复: [PATCH v2] USB: core: remove dead code in do_proc_bulk()
>
> External Mail: This email originated from OUTSIDE of the organization!
> Do not click links, open attachments or provide ANY information unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 11:38:43AM +0000, Rex Nie wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 发送时间: 2024年11月9日 14:59
> > > 收件人: Rex Nie <rex.nie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 抄送: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Angus
> > > Chen <angus.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 主题: Re: [PATCH v2] USB: core: remove dead code in do_proc_bulk()
> > >
> > > External Mail: This email originated from OUTSIDE of the organization!
> > > Do not click links, open attachments or provide ANY information
> > > unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 10:11:41AM +0800, Rex Nie wrote:
> > > > Since len1 is unsigned int, len1 < 0 always false. Remove it keep
> > > > code simple.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Fixes: ae8709b296d8 ("USB: core: Make do_proc_control() and
> > > > do_proc_bulk() killable")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rex Nie <rex.nie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > changes in v2:
> > > > - Add "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" (kernel test robot)
> > >
> > > Why is this relevant for the stable kernels? What bug is being
> > > fixed that users would hit that this is needed to resolve?
> > HI Greg k-h, I got a email from lkp@xxxxxxxxx let me add Cc tag yesterday,
> so I apply v2 patch.
>
> That was because you cc: stable and yet did not tag it as such. That's not
> passing a judgement call on if it should have been done at all, which is what I
> am asking here.
>
Thanks for detailed explanation.
> > Although this shouldn't bother users, the expression len1 < 0 in the
> > if condition doesn't make sense, and removing it makes the code more
> > simple and efficient. The original email from kernel robot test shows as
> follows. I think it no need a cc tag either.
>
> Does this follow the patches as per the documentation for what should be
> accepted for stable kernels?
>
I check Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst again, it don't follow rules for stable kernels.
I think this patch can be picked up by mainline kernel tree.
BRs
Thanks
Rex
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
