[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5A7=ptbOiSUDywwQrFd+DAZ3vsE3dSPab7cwOF3_T3qeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 23:25:41 -0300
From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>
To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"evgreen@...omium.org" <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mmc: core: cd_label must be last entry of mmc_gpio struct
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com> wrote:
> I think either way is OK, since flexible array is used in kernel code quite commonly,
> so I prefer to make code change as small as possible, the original patch can also prevent
> similar bug in future. And like below commit Fabio pointed out, it also has same kind
> of fix: a158531f3c92 ("gpio: 74x164: Fix crash during .remove()"). Thanks.
I am also fine with this patch or the one from Linus.
Maybe Anson's patch could be applied to 4.18-rc as a bug fix and
Linus' patch could be applied to 4.19-rc1 as a cleanup/improvement?
Ulf,
What would you prefer?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists