Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] nfc: trf7970a: Prevent repeated polling from crashing the kernel
From: Geoff Lansberry
Date: Tue Dec 27 2016 - 09:20:20 EST
Mark - I will split this off soon.
In the meantime - here is some more info about how we use it.
We do use NFC structures. I did find an interesting clue in that
there are certain bottles that cause neard to segfault, I'm not sure
what is different about them. We write a string, like
"coppola_chardonnay_2015" to the bottles. Come to think of it, I
haven't done anything special to make that an ndef record, just
assumed that it would happen by default, I'll look into this further.
Also, I've been running neard with --plugin nfctype2. Just in case
the problem was happening due to cycling through other tag types. It
didn't seem to make any difference, but I have not gone back to
125 Kingston St., 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02111
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Mark Greer <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 11:17:18AM -0500, Geoff Lansberry wrote:
>> Mark - I'm sorry, but I did not write this code, and therefore was not
>> able to accurately describe it. It is fixing a different issue, not
>> the neard segfault that we are still chasing. Last week Jaret Cantu
>> sent a separate email explaining the purpose of the code, which had
>> you copied, did you see that?
> Hm, no, I didn't. I received an email from Justin Bronder but not from
> Jaret Cantu. Justin's email did help but is still pretty high-level.
> We need a clear understanding as to what is happening in the digital
> layer and the driver to know how execution is getting into a block of
> error handling code that should never be executed. Once we understand
> that we can start thinking about what the best fix is.
>> Does it explain why it was done to
>> your satisfaction? I've asked him to join in on the effort to push
>> the change upstream, however he will not be available until the new
> I expect that it would help if he joins. After the holidays is fine -
> I think many people are taking it easy for the next week or so, anyway.
>> I know you did suggest that we split off that change from the others,
>> and if now is the time to do that, let me know. If you don't have
>> the email from Jaret, also please let me know and I will forward it to
> I think it would help you if you split it off because the first two patches
> have a good chance of being accepted but this one doesn't (yet). If you
> separate the them, it will make it easier for Samuel to take the first two
> (or he may take the first two anyway but its always good to make it as
> easy maintainers as you can).