Re: 答复: [PATCH v2] USB: core: remove dead code in do_proc_bulk()

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 11:38:43AM +0000, Rex Nie wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > 发送时间: 2024年11月9日 14:59
> > 收件人: Rex Nie <rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
> > 抄送: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Angus Chen
> > <angus.chen@jaguarmicro.com>; stable@vger.kernel.org
> > 主题: Re: [PATCH v2] USB: core: remove dead code in do_proc_bulk()
> > 
> > External Mail: This email originated from OUTSIDE of the organization!
> > Do not click links, open attachments or provide ANY information unless you
> > recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 10:11:41AM +0800, Rex Nie wrote:
> > > Since len1 is unsigned int, len1 < 0 always false. Remove it keep code
> > > simple.
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Fixes: ae8709b296d8 ("USB: core: Make do_proc_control() and
> > > do_proc_bulk() killable")
> > > Signed-off-by: Rex Nie <rex.nie@jaguarmicro.com>
> > > ---
> > > changes in v2:
> > > - Add "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" (kernel test robot)
> > 
> > Why is this relevant for the stable kernels?  What bug is being fixed that
> > users would hit that this is needed to resolve?
> HI Greg k-h, I got a email from lkp@intel.com let me add Cc tag yesterday, so I apply v2 patch.

That was because you cc: stable and yet did not tag it as such.  That's
not passing a judgement call on if it should have been done at all,
which is what I am asking here.

> Although this shouldn't bother users, the expression len1 < 0 in the if condition doesn't make sense,
> and removing it makes the code more simple and efficient. The original email from kernel robot test
> shows as follows. I think it no need a cc tag either.

Does this follow the patches as per the documentation for what should be
accepted for stable kernels?

thanks,

greg k-h