[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e65623b5-44bc-b329-b718-c00aaa0b4805@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 20:58:48 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Michael Welling <mwelling@...e.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mranostay@...il.com,
daniel.baluta@...el.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression in inv_mpu6050: 4.6.0-rc5
On 27/04/16 16:56, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:07:55 -0500
> Michael Welling <mwelling@...e.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:26:51PM +0100, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>>>
>>> This now causes us to crash and burn on the ASUS T100TA Baytrail/T
>>> platforms
>>>
>>
>> I believe this regression has already been patched.
>>
>> Check the latest commits in linux-next.
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/log/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_i2c.c
>>
>> See if the latest patches fix your issue.
>
> It does - as this is a regression can we please get those fixes into the
> next -rc ?
>
I'm afraid I'm lost in this one - which patch caused the regression and
which one fixed it? The only patches I can immediately see in next
both introduce and then squish a similar bug, but neither of them
has hit Linus' tree yet.
Or are we dealing with what was fixed in:
c816d9e7 iio: imu: mpu6050: fix possible NULL dereferences
I had understood that one as more hypothetical than real...
Unfortunately I'm travelling and I suspect that means this will only get
in just after the release (so for 4.6.1) once I've confirmed which fixes
we actually need to backport.
Jonathan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists