linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: 8250: Fixes: Fix port count mismatch with the device

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: <2024061500-jeep-upchuck-6b3a@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:18:41 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Crescent CY Hsieh <crescentcy.hsieh@...a.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: 8250: Fixes: Fix port count mismatch with
 the device

On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 01:36:52PM +0800, Crescent CY Hsieh wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:07:29AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 05:03:22PM +0800, Crescent Hsieh wrote:
> > > Normally, the number of ports is indicated by the third digit of the
> > > device ID on Moxa PCI serial boards. For example, `0x1121` indicates a
> > > device with 2 ports.
> > > 
> > > However, `CP116E_A_A` and `CP116E_A_B` are exceptions; they have 8
> > > ports, but the third digit of the device ID is `6`.
> > > 
> > > This patch introduces a function to retrieve the number of ports on Moxa
> > > PCI serial boards, addressing the issue described above.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Crescent Hsieh <crescentcy.hsieh@...a.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_pci.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > What commit id does this fix?
> 
> None, it's just a normal patch, I might have mistakenly added the "fix"
> tag.

You say "fix" twice in the subject line, and it looks like it actually
does resolve a problem in the current code.

Or is this all just a "cleanup" change?

confused,

greg k-h