On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 04:22:59PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 11:13:12AM +0100, Qasim Ijaz wrote: > > Hi Andrew, Jakub > > > > Just pinging on my last message. Any thoughts on how to proceed with > > this patch series, I left my thoughts in the previous message. > > I would suggest you do the minimum, low risk changes. Don't be driven > to fix all the syzbot warnings just to make syzbot quiet. What really > matters is you don't break the driver for users. syzbot is secondary. > Right, got it so avoid breaking it at all costs, in that case should we move forward with the syzbot fix and the "remove extraneous return that prevents error propagation" patches only? For the syzbot one we will return a negative on control read failure, as the function already does that when encountering an invalid phy_id. As for the "remove extraneous return that prevents error propagation" change it seems like a simple low risk change from what I can tell (if not please let me know). Would you guys be happy with this? Thanks Qasim > Andrew
