drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++---------- drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.c | 8 +++--- drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
This driver does not handle allocation failure when receiving data very well. This patchset implements better handling in the case of allocation failure. Nam Cao (5): staging: vt6655: remove redundant if condition staging: vt6655: change vnt_receive_frame return type to void staging: vt6655: split device_alloc_rx_buf staging: vt6655: change device_alloc_rx_buf's argument staging: vt6655: implement allocation failure handling drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++---------- drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.c | 8 +++--- drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) -- 2.25.1
On 9/15/22 22:29, Nam Cao wrote: > This driver does not handle allocation failure when receiving data very well. > This patchset implements better handling in the case of allocation failure. > > Nam Cao (5): > staging: vt6655: remove redundant if condition > staging: vt6655: change vnt_receive_frame return type to void > staging: vt6655: split device_alloc_rx_buf > staging: vt6655: change device_alloc_rx_buf's argument > staging: vt6655: implement allocation failure handling > > drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++---------- > drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.c | 8 +++--- > drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.h | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > Tested-by: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com> Find in this email a comment from Greg about RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/YwS4WDekXM3UQ7Yo@kroah.com/ This patch is marked as "RFC" but I don't see any questions that you have here. Please resolve anything you think needs to be handled and submit a "this series is ok to be merged" version. May be this is applicable to this patch as well.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:58 PM Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9/15/22 22:29, Nam Cao wrote: > > This driver does not handle allocation failure when receiving data very well. > > This patchset implements better handling in the case of allocation failure. > > > > Nam Cao (5): > > staging: vt6655: remove redundant if condition > > staging: vt6655: change vnt_receive_frame return type to void > > staging: vt6655: split device_alloc_rx_buf > > staging: vt6655: change device_alloc_rx_buf's argument > > staging: vt6655: implement allocation failure handling > > > > drivers/staging/vt6655/device_main.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++---------- > > drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.c | 8 +++--- > > drivers/staging/vt6655/dpc.h | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > Tested-by: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@gmail.com> Thank you, I really appreciate your help. > > > Find in this email a comment from Greg about RFC: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/YwS4WDekXM3UQ7Yo@kroah.com/ > This patch is marked as "RFC" but I don't see any questions that you > have here. Please resolve anything you think needs to be handled and > submit a "this series is ok to be merged" version. > > May be this is applicable to this patch as well. I add the RFC tag to "tells maintainers should review your patch thoroughly, and provide feedback. RFC is typically used when sending feature patches for the first time, or anytime the patch is more than just a simple bug fix." (from https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchTipsAndTricks). I was not aware that this tag may be interpreted differently. I can send a new patchset if necessary. Best regards, Nam
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 09:11:58AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > > Find in this email a comment from Greg about RFC: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/YwS4WDekXM3UQ7Yo@kroah.com/ > > This patch is marked as "RFC" but I don't see any questions that you > > have here. Please resolve anything you think needs to be handled and > > submit a "this series is ok to be merged" version. > > > > May be this is applicable to this patch as well. > > I add the RFC tag to "tells maintainers should review your patch thoroughly, > and provide feedback. RFC is typically used when sending feature patches for > the first time, or anytime the patch is more than just a simple bug fix." > (from https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchTipsAndTricks). I was not aware that this > tag may be interpreted differently. I can send a new patchset if necessary. Clean up patches are much simpler than bug fixes. No need for an RFC. But this patch does too many things and Greg will not apply it. regards, dan carpenter
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:38:19AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 09:11:58AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > > > Find in this email a comment from Greg about RFC: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/YwS4WDekXM3UQ7Yo@kroah.com/ > > > This patch is marked as "RFC" but I don't see any questions that you > > > have here. Please resolve anything you think needs to be handled and > > > submit a "this series is ok to be merged" version. > > > > > > May be this is applicable to this patch as well. > > > > I add the RFC tag to "tells maintainers should review your patch thoroughly, > > and provide feedback. RFC is typically used when sending feature patches for > > the first time, or anytime the patch is more than just a simple bug fix." > > (from https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchTipsAndTricks). I was not aware that this > > tag may be interpreted differently. I can send a new patchset if necessary. > > Clean up patches are much simpler than bug fixes. No need for an RFC. > > But this patch does too many things and Greg will not apply it. Sorry, when I wrote this email I thought I was responding to a different thread. regards, dan carpenter
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.