Hi Marc, (Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town!)
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 02/26/2015 04:20 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > From: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darw...@valeo.com> > > > > Upon a URB submission failure, the driver calls usb_free_urb() > > but then manually frees the URB buffer by itself. Meanwhile > > usb_free_urb() has alredy freed out that transfer buffer since > > we're the only code path holding a reference to this URB. > > > > Remove two of such invalid manual free(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darw...@valeo.com> > > Applied 1+2 and added stable on Cc. Can you please shuffle the remaining > patches, so that patch 5 comes first, then 4 and 3 as the last patch. As > 5 is a bugfix it should go into stable, while 3 isn't. > > You can base your series on the can/testing branch. > Did not care much about the bugfixes order this time as the patches themselves will not apply cleanly (or at all) to -stable due to the addition of UsbCAN-II code, which all -stable kernels do not have. Thus I guess I'll need to submit a different patch series for -stable with patches 1, 2, and 5 -- rebased. Nonetheless, you're correct that having the bugfixes (1,2,5), then the optimization (4), then the janitorial fix (3) is the logical order for history & bisection sake. So.. I'll re-order the patches, individually test with the new order, and re-submit over can/testing. Thanks, Darwish -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
