[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1B225693-9307-46E2-B468-1529B1FF03CD@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 00:24:24 +0800
From: Kai Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
"open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ronald Tschalär <ronald@...ovation.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: Increase maximum report size allowed by
hid_field_extract()
> On May 21, 2019, at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:30 PM Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>>
>>>> Ronald (Cc-ed) raised quite a good point:
>>>> what's the benefit of removing the error message if this function (and
>>>> __extract) can only report an unsigned 32 bits value?
>>>
>>> I didn’t spot this, sorry.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My take is we should revert 94a9992f7dbdfb28976b upstream and think at
>>>> a better solution.
>>>
>>> I think using a new fix to replace it will be a better approach, as it at
>>> least partially solves the issue.
>>
>> Guys, did this fall in between cracks? Is anyone planning to send a fixup?
>>
>
> Kai-Heng, have you been able to work on that?
Sorry, I haven’t been able to work on this.
Please revert the commit and possibly use *_once() macro to reduce the noise.
Kai-Heng
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists