> Due to race conditions between qca_hw_error and qca_controller_memdump
> during SSR timeout,the same pointer is freed twice.
This is an unfortunate software situation.
> Which results to double free error.
How do you think about to omit this sentence from the change description?
> Now a lock is acquired while SSR state moved to timeout.
I suggest to convert this information into an imperative wording.
Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
Regards,
Markus
Hi Markus,
Sure we will update in next patch set.
Regards,
Lakshmi Narayna.
On 2020-06-04 23:54, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> Due to race conditions between qca_hw_error and qca_controller_memdump
>> during SSR timeout,the same pointer is freed twice.
>
> This is an unfortunate software situation.
>
>
>> Which results to double free error.
>
> How do you think about to omit this sentence from the change
> description?
>
>
>> Now a lock is acquired while SSR state moved to timeout.
>
> I suggest to convert this information into an imperative wording.
>
> Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 08:24:34PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Due to race conditions between qca_hw_error and qca_controller_memdump
> > during SSR timeout,the same pointer is freed twice.
>
> This is an unfortunate software situation.
>
>
> > Which results to double free error.
>
> How do you think about to omit this sentence from the change description?
>
>
> > Now a lock is acquired while SSR state moved to timeout.
>
> I suggest to convert this information into an imperative wording.
>
> Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless
review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing
list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not
bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and
features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to
follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by
almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of
behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and
inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails
from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot