[PATCH upstream] nand: nand_base: Always initialise oob_poi before writing OOB data

THOMSON, Adam (Adam) adam.thomson at alcatel-lucent.com
Wed Jun 22 07:08:44 EDT 2011

Artem wrote:

> I did not figure out why you sent 2 separate patches. Usually 
> it is one patch which goes upstream, then GregKH and others 
> pick it up and back ports to various stable trees. If they 
> have issues, they may come and ask for help. So there should 
> be 1 patch.
> >  That patch version (v3)did
> > not remove the final memset from nand_do_write_oob, as you 
> requested.
> Did I request so? I thought I just expressed a thought that 
> the memset is redundant and should be killed, and I thought 
> you'd take a deeper look and decide whether it is safe to do or not.
> > Named both patches the same as they were pretty much indentical, 
> > except for the memset. Didn't know the convention for patch naming 
> > where one was going to stable, and the other to the latest 
> so marked 
> > the latest as upstream to differentiate.
> So do we need that memset or not? :-)

The original request was for a stable patch, and that would be accepted
if I provided a proper tidy fix also. To be fair it was a few weeks ago
now that that mail was sent. :-) Anyway, as it turns out the tidy fix was
almost identical, and we don't need the memset as far as I can tell
from reviewing code and from testing. Will run up your patch today to
verify your additional change, but should be fine.

> --
> Best Regards,
> Artem Bityutskiy



More information about the linux-mtd mailing list