RE: cciss update [1 of 6]

RE: cciss update [1 of 6]

[Miller, Mike (OS Dev)]

Sorry, I thought the descriptions in the patch were sufficient. 
Again, I wish viro would copy me on patches to cciss. Isn't that the normal protocol, include the maintainer in any updates?

mikem

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@osdl.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 6:29 PM
To: Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
Cc: axboe@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cciss update [1 of 6]


"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <mike.miller@hp.com> wrote:
>
> Patch 1 of 6
> Name: p001_ioctl32_fix_for_268rc2.patch

It would make life easier for me if you could give each patch a nice
Subject: which describes what it does.  "cciss update [N of 6]" isn't very
meaningful.  And the name of the file into which you chose to place the
patch isn't a suitable description either.  Thanks.

All of these patches are generating rejects for me - eager beavers have
been patching your driver when you weren't looking.  Could you please redo
and reissue the patch series against -rc3?

Thanks.

Re: cciss update [1 of 6]

[Jens Axboe]

On Thu, Aug 05 2004, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> Sorry, I thought the descriptions in the patch were sufficient.
> Again, I wish viro would copy me on patches to cciss. Isn't that the
> normal protocol, include the maintainer in any updates?

(Mike, please don't top post...)

People usually try to do that, for some bigger patch sets that touch
lots of files (which Al does do a lot of), it's not always easy to do
so. I suggest you try and track at least each major release and see what
has been applied to your driver (if anything). That way you also don't
risk backing out included fixes when diffing your own tree.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: cciss update [1 of 6]

[Andrew Morton]

"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <mike.miller@hp.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I thought the descriptions in the patch were sufficient. 

The descriptions are fine - I was just mentioning the email's Subject:
line.

> Again, I wish viro would copy me on patches to cciss. Isn't that the normal protocol, include the maintainer in any updates?

It tends to depend on the importance of the patch, the activity level of
the maintainer, etc.  If the patches are dependent on other patches to
other parts of the kernel then it's best that they all go in as a single
lump.  A courtesy Cc: never hurts, althought it's sometime hard to hunt
down the right person.

I have suffered some pain from the depredations of the sparse changes. 
Hopefully it's mostly all done now.

Re: cciss update [1 of 6]

[viro]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:23:20AM -0500, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
> Sorry, I thought the descriptions in the patch were sufficient. 
> Again, I wish viro would copy me on patches to cciss. Isn't that the normal protocol, include the maintainer in any updates?

My apologies; it *was* a part of huge series, though ;-/

RE: cciss update [1 of 6]

[Miller, Mike (OS Dev)]

-----Original Message-----
From: viro@www.linux.org.uk [mailto:viro@www.linux.org.uk]On Behalf Of
viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 1:26 PM
To: Miller, Mike (OS Dev)
Cc: Andrew Morton; axboe@suse.de; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cciss update [1 of 6]


On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:23:20AM -0500, Miller, Mike (OS Dev) wrote:
>> Sorry, I thought the descriptions in the patch were sufficient. 
>> Again, I wish viro would copy me on patches to cciss. Isn't that the normal protocol, include the maintainer in any updates?

>My apologies; it *was* a part of huge series, though ;-/

I understand. I'm over it now. :)

mikem

cciss update [1 of 6]

[Miller, Mike (OS Dev)]

Patch 1 of 6
Name: p001_ioctl32_fix_for_268rc2.patch

This patch fixes a bug in our call to copy_to_user in our 32/64 conversions.
We were passing in the sizeof the address instead of the sizeof the struct.
Stupid bug.
This applies to 2.6.8-rc2. Please consider this for inclusion.

Thanks,
mikem
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -burpN lx268-rc2.orig/drivers/block/cciss.c lx268-rc2/drivers/block/cciss.c
--- lx268-rc2.orig/drivers/block/cciss.c        2004-07-30 10:00:16.670069000 -0500
+++ lx268-rc2/drivers/block/cciss.c     2004-07-30 10:26:55.243049808 -0500
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ int cciss_ioctl32_passthru(unsigned int
        set_fs(old_fs);
        if (err)
                return err;
-       err |= copy_to_user(&arg32->error_info, &arg64.error_info, sizeof(&arg32->error_info));
+       err |= copy_to_user(&arg32->error_info, &arg64.error_info, sizeof(arg32->error_info));
        if (err)
                return -EFAULT;
        return err;
@@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ int cciss_ioctl32_big_passthru(unsigned
        set_fs(old_fs);
        if (err)
                return err;
-       err |= copy_to_user(&arg32->error_info, &arg64.error_info, sizeof(&arg32->error_info));
+       err |= copy_to_user(&arg32->error_info, &arg64.error_info, sizeof(arg32->error_info));
        if (err)
                return -EFAULT;
        return err;

Re: cciss update [1 of 6]

[Andrew Morton]

"Miller, Mike (OS Dev)" <mike.miller@hp.com> wrote:
>
> Patch 1 of 6
> Name: p001_ioctl32_fix_for_268rc2.patch

It would make life easier for me if you could give each patch a nice
Subject: which describes what it does.  "cciss update [N of 6]" isn't very
meaningful.  And the name of the file into which you chose to place the
patch isn't a suitable description either.  Thanks.

All of these patches are generating rejects for me - eager beavers have
been patching your driver when you weren't looking.  Could you please redo
and reissue the patch series against -rc3?

Thanks.