> > I think Greg is referring to commit 464ad8c43a9e ("usb: core : hub: Fix
> > BOS 'NULL pointer' kernel panic"), which has already been applied
> > upstream. It looks to me like that patch might have fixed the same
> > problem in a different way, in which case Changbin's patch is not
> > needed.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:35:57AM -0400, Tony Battersby wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 10:53 PM, Du, Changbin wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:15:17PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
> >>> From: "Du, Changbin"
> >>>
> >>> This is a reworked patch based on reverted commit d8f00cd685f5 ("usb:
> >
On 04/26/2016 10:53 PM, Du, Changbin wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:15:17PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
>>> From: "Du, Changbin"
>>>
>>> This is a reworked patch based on reverted commit d8f00cd685f5 ("usb:
>>> hub: do not clear BOS field during reset device").
>>>
>>> The privious o
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:15:17PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: "Du, Changbin"
> >
> > This is a reworked patch based on reverted commit d8f00cd685f5 ("usb:
> > hub: do not clear BOS field during reset device").
> >
> > The privious one caused double mem-free if run to re_enumer
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:15:17PM +0800, changbin...@intel.com wrote:
> From: "Du, Changbin"
>
> This is a reworked patch based on reverted commit d8f00cd685f5 ("usb:
> hub: do not clear BOS field during reset device").
>
> The privious one caused double mem-free if run to re_enumerate label.
>
From: "Du, Changbin"
This is a reworked patch based on reverted commit d8f00cd685f5 ("usb:
hub: do not clear BOS field during reset device").
The privious one caused double mem-free if run to re_enumerate label.
New patch title changed to distinguish from old one. And I have tested
it with memor
6 matches
Mail list logo
