Re: [PATCH] fix hso soft-lockup

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:37:35PM +0200, Antti Kaijanmäki wrote:
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/usb/hso.c |    9 ++++++---
> > >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > > index fa4e581..539642a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
> > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > >   *
> > >   * Driver for Option High Speed Mobile Devices.
> > >   *
> > > + *  Copyright (C) 2009 Antti Kaijanmäki <antti.kaijanmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Adding a copyright for a few lines changed is not really correct.
> 
> Well, it depends on policy. Some might argue that if you make a change
> of any sort you must include your copyright notice. I also used a fair
> amount of time to track down the problem so this is not just a
> whitespace fix or something. But I understand if this is not considered
> substantial enough to justify copyright notice and will leave this out
> from the revised patch.

According to some lawyers whom I have discussed this with, you need to
have written at least 1/3 of the lines in the file to be able to claim
this in the file itself.  That might not be true, but is a good
guideline that I've used over the years.

You always own the copyright to your individual change though, and git
preserves that information for all time as well.

> > > @@ -1527,7 +1530,7 @@ static void tiocmget_intr_callback(struct urb *urb)
> > >  		dev_warn(&usb->dev,
> > >  			 "hso received invalid serial state notification\n");
> > >  		DUMP(serial_state_notification,
> > > -		     sizeof(hso_serial_state_notifation))
> > > +		     sizeof(struct hso_serial_state_notification));
> > 
> > Is this a build fix not related to the bug above?
> 
> No, as I commented on commit log message the patch also fixes the debug
> routines. They have to be enabled by hand by uncommenting a DEBUG define
> on the top of the file so this is not anything fatal, just minor
> inconvenience.
> 
> I thought the debug routines were not important enough to have their own
> patch and could be included in this patch as the patch is very small and
> the debug routines do not affect any default functionality. Naturally I
> can remove the debug routine fix if you want. It's trivial for anyone to
> fix them when needed :)

Yes, that should be a new patch, especially as it would not be needed
to fix older kernels for the original bug.

So, care to send 2 patches?  The debug one isn't needed to be sent to
the stable@xxxxxxxxxx address.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/