On Sun, 10 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Christophe Jaillet proposed to complete the exception handling also for this
> function implementation.
> I find that such a software correction is qualified for this tag.
>
> Is there a way to add a Fixes tag that would not invoke the -stable
> process? And was that what you had in mind?
Christophe Jaillet proposed to complete the exception handling also for this
function implementation.
I find that such a software correction is qualified for this tag.
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct
> > platform_device *pdev)
> > struct sonic_local* lp = netdev_priv(dev);
> >
> > unregister_netdev(dev);
> > -
On Sat, 9 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > While at it, rename a label in order to be slightly more informative and
> > split some too long lines.
>
> Would you like to add the tag 'Fixes' to the change description?
>
Sorry but I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you saying that this
On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 16:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Perches
> Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 15:42:36 -0700
>
> > David, maybe I missed some notification about Jakub's role.
> >
> > What is Jakub's role in relation to the networking tree?
>
> He is the co-maintainer of the networking
From: Joe Perches
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 15:42:36 -0700
> David, maybe I missed some notification about Jakub's role.
>
> What is Jakub's role in relation to the networking tree?
He is the co-maintainer of the networking tree and you should respect
his actions and feedback as if it were coming
On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 11:13 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > > @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int
Le 09/05/2020 à 20:13, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
On Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
@@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct
On Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> >> @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct
> >> platform_device *pdev)
> >>struct
Le 09/05/2020 à 03:54, Jakub Kicinski a écrit :
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
@@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct platform_device
*pdev)
struct sonic_local* lp = netdev_priv(dev);
unregister_netdev(dev);
-
> While at it, rename a label in order to be slightly more informative and
> split some too long lines.
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the change description?
…
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/natsemi/macsonic.c
> @@ -506,10 +506,14 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_probe(struct
>
On Sat, 9 May 2020 11:57:44 +1000 (AEST) Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > Only macsonic has been compile tested. I don't have the needed setup to
> > > compile xtsonic
> >
> > Well, we gotta do
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > Only macsonic has been compile tested. I don't have the needed setup to
> > compile xtsonic
>
> Well, we gotta do that before we apply the patch :S
>
I've compiled xtsonic.c with this
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> @@ -527,8 +531,9 @@ static int mac_sonic_platform_remove(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> struct sonic_local* lp = netdev_priv(dev);
>
> unregister_netdev(dev);
> - dma_free_coherent(lp->device, SIZEOF_SONIC_DESC *
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:25:57 +0200 Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Only macsonic has been compile tested. I don't have the needed setup to
> compile xtsonic
Well, we gotta do that before we apply the patch :S
Does the driver actually depend on some platform stuff, or can we
do this:
diff --git
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> A call to 'dma_alloc_coherent()' is hidden in
> 'sonic_alloc_descriptors()'.
>
> This is correctly freed in the remove function, but not in the error
> handling path of the probe function. Fix it and add the missing
> 'dma_free_coherent()'
A call to 'dma_alloc_coherent()' is hidden in 'sonic_alloc_descriptors()'.
This is correctly freed in the remove function, but not in the error
handling path of the probe function.
Fix it and add the missing 'dma_free_coherent()' call.
While at it, rename a label in order to be slightly more
17 matches
Mail list logo
