Re: [PATCH 1/2] i2c: cros-ec-tunnel: Fix usage of cros_ec_cmd_xfer()
From: Thierry Reding
Date: Thu Jul 28 2016 - 10:16:11 EST
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38:20AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:14:33AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 01:48:25PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:43:13PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:14:10AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > > > cros_ec_cmd_xfer returns success status if the command transport
> > > > > completes successfully, but the execution result is incorrectly ignored.
> > > > > In many cases, the execution result is assumed to be successful, leading
> > > > > to ignored errors and operating on uninitialized data.
> > > > >
> > > > > We've recently introduced the cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() helper to avoid these
> > > > > problems. Let's use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Dmitry about Thierry pushing the patch. So:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Fine with me, as long as Thierry is up for it.
> > >
> > > BTW, I think the dependency is on target for v4.8-rc1, so if Thierry
> > > misses this, then you should be able to apply this yourself after the
> > > merge window.
> > Why the rush? The behaviour of the cros_ec_cmd_xfer() function has not
> > changed in at least a year, so this can't be very urgent. I merged the
> > original patch because it is a dependency for another patch, but given
> > the above I think it's fine if we wait until after v4.8-rc1 and let
> > subsystem maintainers pick them up individually.
> I wasn't personally suggesting it was a rush -- actually, the contrary.
> I was just informing Wolfram and Dmitry that the dependency only was
> relevant *if* they were rushing to have the patches applied.
Okay, I'll let Wolfram and Dmitry pick these up after v4.8-rc1 then.
> > On another note, the commit message makes it sound like this might fix
> > potential bugs. Since it's been like that for a couple of releases, do
> > we need to Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> It does potentially fix bugs. I suspect those bugs would probably occur
> mostly in cases of poorly-configured software (e.g., using the wrong EC
> protocol) or prototype hardware, but it's certainly possible this could
> head off in-the-field bugs. Perhaps Gwendal or Shawn could elaborate.
> At any rate, if you Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, you'll want to include
> the dependency in the commit message. I think the format is something
> like this:
> Fixes: SHA ("i2c: wherever this driver was introduced")
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 9798ac6d32c1 mfd: cros_ec: Add cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() helper
That's information you're supposed to add to your patch as the author,
so as a courtesy to upstream maintainers, perhaps resend these two
patches with a complete set of tags once v4.8-rc1 has been released?
Description: PGP signature