On 05.12.20 22:09, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:56:33 +0100 Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
On 12/5/20 9:33 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
What about the (incremental?) change that Thomas Wagner posted?
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201204135557.55599-1-th...@web.de
That settles it :) This change needs to got into -next and 5.11.
Ok. Can you take patch 1, which is a real fix:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201204133508.742120-2-...@pengutronix.de/
Sure! Applied that one from the ML (I assumed that's what you meant).
I just double-checked this mail and in fact the second patch from Marc's
pull request was a real fix too:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201204133508.742120-3-...@pengutronix.de/
Btw. the missing feature which was added for completeness of the ISOTP
implementation has now also integrated the improvement suggested by
Thomas Wagner:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20201206144731.4609-1-socket...@hartkopp.net/T/#u
Would be cool if it could go into the initial iso-tp contribution as
5.10 becomes a long-term kernel.
But I don't want to be pushy - treat it as your like.
Many thanks,
Oliver
