From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from todd.t-8ch.de (todd.t-8ch.de [159.69.126.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08E3A313E2A; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 10:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767177371; cv=none; b=RGL+IeyjxspPEdlome3NOp1O+4DZRvxSpUPzNLbG4HJRsFwKxc3h0PuKLRz6pVKhTspVdH70vxatTZfZkxP4pbr7sTduoJkZwv96HuiyOO57WB6zgNX0uewg9vicZk0IlRO1dhE/evXj7z5rKKqz6k1GcpySvcNgoaQVSzkXsSI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767177371; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LDF4ARuzunhfsj6zAMmkog9ma6Ip1TH3chjUte6eewY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PPRvAvzxEFiQrhpLwnCJp7BPjSHZZ3rZ+MEbTnzbOZr8IEw4C8Qt5MJpB22vIHKX5yaC6rM7JYWnRFMSnOsU0bK5jz9lNm+VNl80hMmVqE3Mbcwczmw751dKQO42oSR6Rdf1nzDUv1VpfnC9kArSRfJKmI015U/1r6Uodso1ThY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b=j49yk9EK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b="j49yk9EK" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=weissschuh.net; s=mail; t=1767177360; bh=LDF4ARuzunhfsj6zAMmkog9ma6Ip1TH3chjUte6eewY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=j49yk9EKPJTUpBpb5EDnRRzqNE+RPpfciqoQWEyUYz3KyccoNvTL3C2HmL2p8tT6z ewhpjmJDDe85/47XHYuB9vQKi9VMcFPVaWzmzqQOq0TFfGuqQhecqTgMAJrLlTojnb 1v0SbsX/9t9GFVJcH5LRlnuOaLlCWAcFIdS+pI7o= Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:36:00 +0100 From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= To: Shuah Khan Cc: Matthew Schwartz , Linus Torvalds , Eric Biggers , Mikhail Gavrilov , Mario Limonciello , Johannes Berg , quan.zhou@mediatek.com, Felix Fietkau , lorenzo@kernel.org, ryder.lee@mediatek.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux ARM , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, shuah Subject: Re: Linux 6.19-rc1 mediatek mt7921e broke badly Message-ID: <8c8c8f27-ba44-48eb-96f6-dae6d2d0cbf8@t-8ch.de> References: <756e3f65-b2f2-4da3-985a-17754a7a872d@t-8ch.de> <6fc04df5-b753-4b2d-b978-0e59a7f48ff7@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On 2025-12-30 16:57:20-0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 12/29/25 21:21, Matthew Schwartz wrote: > > On 12/29/25 4:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 at 04:25, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Shuah, > > > > > > > > On 2025-12-27 02:07:24-0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > > > > > mt7921e doesn't load on my primary laptopn on Linux 6.19-rc1 and problem > > > > > still there on 6.19-rc2. > > > > > > > > This should be a duplicate of > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABXGCsMeAZyNJ-Axt_CUCXgyieWPV3rrcLpWsveMPT8R0YPGnQ@mail.gmail.com/ (...) > Reverting the following fixed my problem. > f804a5895eba ("wifi: mt76: Strip whitespace from build ddate") > > The above fixes an extra newline in the dmesg by making the > code more complex it needs to introducing local buffers and > strscpy() - the proposed fix replaces this with memcpy(). > > Is there a simple way to do this than introducing memcpy() > or strscpy() to remove an extra newline that might or might > not exist? Why not check if newline exists or not using > strstr()? We do have memtostr() which would be a perfect fit to use here. That is still a memcpy() under the hood, but the code is clear and safe. It does however require the source to be annotated as __nonstring. Which also seems to be the right choice here anyways. However for consistency, all other similar fields should also be annotated in the same way. So it is a bit of a larger change than a pure bugfix. Thomas