| Message ID | 20241218102429.2026460-1-quic_ekangupt@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add missing fixes in fastrpc_get_args | expand |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:54:27 +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: > This patch series adds the listed bug fixes that have been missing > in upstream fastRPC driver: > - Page address for registered buffer(with fd) is not calculated > properly. > - Page size calculation for non-registered buffer(copy buffer) is > incorrect. > > [...] Applied, thanks! [1/2] misc: fastrpc: Fix registered buffer page address commit: fa22a9743aece593fe9f1e0a0d6189a777d67e38 [2/2] misc: fastrpc: Fix copy buffer page size commit: 58570026c7ac249bfbd90f9fcb7d2e0a74a106a1 Best regards,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 04:15:42PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:54:27 +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: > > This patch series adds the listed bug fixes that have been missing > > in upstream fastRPC driver: > > - Page address for registered buffer(with fd) is not calculated > > properly. > > - Page size calculation for non-registered buffer(copy buffer) is > > incorrect. > > > > [...] > > Applied, thanks! May I ask, why they are being accepted with the obvious checkpatch warnings? What kind of process is being followed, as those patches had review comments to be implemented in the next iteration. > > [1/2] misc: fastrpc: Fix registered buffer page address > commit: fa22a9743aece593fe9f1e0a0d6189a777d67e38 > [2/2] misc: fastrpc: Fix copy buffer page size > commit: 58570026c7ac249bfbd90f9fcb7d2e0a74a106a1 > > Best regards, > -- > Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> >
On 30/12/2024 18:22, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 04:15:42PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:54:27 +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: >>> This patch series adds the listed bug fixes that have been missing >>> in upstream fastRPC driver: >>> - Page address for registered buffer(with fd) is not calculated >>> properly. >>> - Page size calculation for non-registered buffer(copy buffer) is >>> incorrect. >>> >>> [...] >> >> Applied, thanks! > > May I ask, why they are being accepted with the obvious checkpatch > warnings? If you are referring to this warning. WARNING: Invalid email format for stable: 'stable <stable@kernel.org>', prefer 'stable@kernel.org' I tend to fix such small warnings before applying. These are fixed now. > > What kind of process is being followed, as those patches had review > comments to be implemented in the next iteration. I apply these patches if it looks good to me. This also helps with getting it tested from wider audience via linux-next. I do run TFLite workloads before it ends up in char-misc, but not for every patch. sorry If I missed any blocker comments, but your comments were more on the cover letter content and asking about the work loads which triggers these bugs. Are these patches breaking any of your test-cases? --srini
On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 08:32:30PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > On 30/12/2024 18:22, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 04:15:42PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:54:27 +0530, Ekansh Gupta wrote: > > > > This patch series adds the listed bug fixes that have been missing > > > > in upstream fastRPC driver: > > > > - Page address for registered buffer(with fd) is not calculated > > > > properly. > > > > - Page size calculation for non-registered buffer(copy buffer) is > > > > incorrect. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > May I ask, why they are being accepted with the obvious checkpatch > > warnings? > > If you are referring to this warning. > WARNING: Invalid email format for stable: 'stable <stable@kernel.org>', > prefer 'stable@kernel.org' > > I tend to fix such small warnings before applying. These are fixed now. > > > > > What kind of process is being followed, as those patches had review > > comments to be implemented in the next iteration. > > I apply these patches if it looks good to me. This also helps with getting > it tested from wider audience via linux-next. > > I do run TFLite workloads before it ends up in char-misc, but not for every > patch. > > sorry If I missed any blocker comments, but your comments were more on the > cover letter content and asking about the work loads which triggers these > bugs. > > Are these patches breaking any of your test-cases? No. But info about work-loads is the most important part: it makes sure that none of the developers miss similar issue next time.