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@xxxxxxxxxx>', > prefer 'stable@xxxxxxxxxx' > > 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. -- With best wishes Dmitry
