From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 799B420F08C; Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:28:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741274934; cv=none; b=FCPqSVFWN7UFpTtSKJBEqgU3NF9tqZDGLk3JMKTQDeRAuFRuObkV96YkuRzH2Ed6aK9rBX9mwFTE+mJCQET5KyWromjMnOBxa/rOQBS8pCCU3ycsDxxcH+wp3VfB2sIrdK7KG2k7fu7otUTD5MYwEgcNvlBrkasQZXxtiwLhgJE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741274934; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aQePbAYdZXrXbAi42yBry4e/Wzyfvuk6yi8cLF4DVrA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=RBc/QcXudW9BNAulT4aGTO07ORU8TyL7xxanRzwRlTt4jH9A4ANslJRPfrjhRTSUOBsU7y1IVQKhCyWFSlCMAOuGnf8s6k1pEb8dalwRKRcGUifMlRdc4rS+ETt3MAnpvJAdniFuX3ilEKptK/fNv0Pspdj6hxRCx99xw97Smi8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=JVdFBJAv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="JVdFBJAv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1741274932; x=1772810932; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aQePbAYdZXrXbAi42yBry4e/Wzyfvuk6yi8cLF4DVrA=; b=JVdFBJAv/2+8QabO0JHgPEWeZKXiD1cI9bWryE+p/Z/F+mPrIAndgecw cFkATHQFOPcGdzU37e/BjjuC/wG19jb2DBEQAmSO0Mo6hOd9xUJd1uu8y nw+TdhybFEr0SV1inODwhZaIUyfeIDsTygnQA0DlkT0H+Nqpt2FbBe6UJ YphCkzizLiNMfvjNQsdR4KQJe+8Q6neFDOk36fg0VVTuLUeVxVy731WKn pMuuYx0XTRm/a6zBlo+MEZcSdMyOqCvT1wBuv76NSuymNRY6MMJnP7xiw JXHSFcXHp1VZGAPTOgLNcbyqGTRGbJtVV8uyLoWIqofCHnWhn31pany1y A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: gprz+VCuSwGtTAS0K3qxZg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: yddHbs4ATeOMNEr3JVHDVQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11365"; a="52934889" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,226,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="52934889" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Mar 2025 07:28:29 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: kUJrh9qhSHSEAUO6xIXRkQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Q1S6lfyHTLi8Yj4rLsKI5A== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.14,226,1736841600"; d="scan'208";a="119058098" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.237.72.199]) ([10.237.72.199]) by orviesa006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2025 07:28:28 -0800 Message-ID: <22876af7-4f9a-40ce-aa9d-2bcab89ce8ae@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 17:29:30 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] usb: xhci: Don't skip on Stopped - Length Invalid To: Greg KH Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Michal Pecio , stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20250306144954.3507700-1-mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> <20250306144954.3507700-4-mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com> <2025030611-twister-synapse-8a99@gregkh> Content-Language: en-US From: Mathias Nyman In-Reply-To: <2025030611-twister-synapse-8a99@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6.3.2025 16.52, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: > Why is a patch cc: stable burried here in a series for linux-next? It > will be many many weeks before it gets out to anyone else, is that > intentional? > > Same for the other commit in this series tagged that way. These are both kind of half theoretical issues that have been around for years without more complaints. No need to rush them to stable. Balance between regression risk vs adding them to stable. This patch for example states: "I had no luck producing this sequence of completion events so there is no compelling demonstration of any resulting disaster. It may be a very rare, obscure condition. The sole motivation for this patch is that if such unlikely event does occur, I'd rather risk reporting a cancelled partially done isoc frame as empty than gamble with UA" Thanks Mathias