linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: r8188eu: Make some clean-ups in usbctrl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3740714.KPokl01s95@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 24 Aug 2021 17:15:38 +0200
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: r8188eu: Make some clean-ups in usbctrl_vendorreq()

On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:39:51 PM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 8/24/21 5:28 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > After replacing usb_control_msg() with the new usb_control_msg_recv() and
> > usb_control_msg_send() API of USB Core, remove camelcase from the pIo_buf
> > variable that is passed as argument to the new API and remove the initial
> > 'p' (that probably stands for "pointer") from the same pIo_buf and from
> > the pintfhdl and pdata arguments of usbctrl_vendorreq().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c | 22 ++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> 
> I cannot apply this one on top of the first one:
> 
> error: patch failed: drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c:33
> error: drivers/staging/r8188eu/hal/usb_ops_linux.c: patch does not apply
> 
> With regards,
> Pavel Skripkin

This is the same problem that yesterday Philip had. I cannot understand why it can
happen, because I've worked on this soon after 1/2 and in the while Greg didn't 
apply nothing. I've only worked on one function both in 1/2 and in 2/2 and I would expect
that either both of them apply or none of them. What am I missing?

Thanks,

Fabio