Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 16:11:31 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>, alexander.usyskin@intel.com,
        tomas.winkler@intel.com, arnd@arndb.de, nathan@kernel.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, trix@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] misc: mei: client.c: fix problem of return
 '-EOVERFLOW' in mei_cl_write
Message-ID: <bd13cda0-6437-40fa-a73a-9770be6f0167@suswa.mountain>
References: <20231128014507.418254-1-suhui@nfschina.com>
 <2023120452-stool-party-bf2b@gregkh>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2023120452-stool-party-bf2b@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:00:42AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > index 7ea80779a0e2..0489bec4fded 100644
> > --- a/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/client.c
> > @@ -2033,7 +2033,7 @@ ssize_t mei_cl_write(struct mei_cl *cl, struct mei_cl_cb *cb, unsigned long time
> >  	hbuf_slots = mei_hbuf_empty_slots(dev);
> >  	if (hbuf_slots < 0) {
> >  		rets = -EOVERFLOW;
> > -		goto out;
> > +		goto err;
> 
> Please prove that this is correct, as based on the code logic, it seems
> very wrong.  I can't take this unless the code is tested properly.

Hi Greg,

When Su Hui sent the v2 patch you sent an auto response about adding
stable to the CC list.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2023112042-napped-snoring-b766@gregkh/

However, it appears that you still applied the v2 patch.  It's in
linux-next as commit ee6236027218 ("misc: mei: client.c: fix problem of
return '-EOVERFLOW' in mei_cl_write").

When I use `git am` to apply this patch, then it doesn't apply.  However,
when I use cat email.txt | patch -p1 then it tries to reverse the patch
and apply it to a different function.

So this a kind of confusing thing.

regards,
dan carpenter