On 03/09/2015 01:32 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > (Sorry for the late reply as I was out of town!)
np :) > 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. Submitting patches ported to -stable would be a second step. You don't have to, but I'd appreciate it. > 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. Ack, or bugfix, janitorial then optimization. Please use linux-can-fixes-for-4.0-20150309 (which include 1 and 2) as your base. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
