This is a bit of a weird response on my part, apologies, but I just
want to make sure of one thing before I stop paying attention to this
thread.
On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 21:02 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Because the responses you have been given read like a bot,
>
> I find it interesting that
> Because the responses you have been given read like a bot,
I find it interesting that you interpret provided information
in such a direction.
>and numerous
> actual contributors and kernel maintainers like myself and Greg have
> asked
On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 20:42 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > (...I doubt I'll get a response from Markus,
>
> Why?
Because the responses you have been given read like a bot, and numerous
actual contributors and kernel maintainers like myself and Greg have
asked you to stop leaving messages like t
> (...I doubt I'll get a response from Markus,
Why?
> but I certainly want to
> make sure they are a bot
Can I ever adjust your views into more desirable directions
(as it occasionally happened with other contributors)?
> a
Ma Ke - I assume you already know but you can just ignore this message
from Markus as it is just spam. Sorry about the trouble!
Markus, you've already been asked by Greg so I will ask a bit more
sternly in case there is actually a person on the other end: you've
already been asked to stop by Greg
> In nouveau_connector_get_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate()
> is assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer
> dereference on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to avoid npd.
A) Can a wording approach (like the following) be a better change description?
In nouveau_connector_get_modes(), the return value of drm_mode_duplicate()
is assigned to mode, which will lead to a possible NULL pointer
dereference on failure of drm_mode_duplicate(). Add a check to avoid npd.
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 6ee738610f41 ("drm/nouveau: Add DRM driver for NVID
