-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org 发送时间: 2024年11月9日 19:47 收件人: Rex Nie rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com 抄送: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Angus Chen angus.chen@jaguarmicro.com; stable@vger.kernel.org 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@linuxfoundation.org 发送时间: 2024年11月9日 14:59 收件人: Rex Nie rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com 抄送: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Angus Chen angus.chen@jaguarmicro.com; stable@vger.kernel.org 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@vger.kernel.org Fixes: ae8709b296d8 ("USB: core: Make do_proc_control() and do_proc_bulk() killable") Signed-off-by: Rex Nie rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com
changes in v2:
- Add "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" (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@intel.com 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