On 13.11.24 15:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.11.24 07:32, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 04:40:40PM +0300, Dragos Tatulea wrote:
>>>> From: Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The starting iova address to iterate iotlb map entry within a range
>>>> was set to an irrelevant value when passing to the itree_next()
>>>> iterator, although luckily it doesn't affect the outcome of finding
>>>> out the granule of the smallest iotlb map size. Fix the code to make
>>>> it consistent with the following for-loop.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 94abbccdf291 ("vdpa/mlx5: Add shared memory registration code")
>>>
>>>
>>> But the cover letter says "that's why it does not have a fixes tag".
>>> Confused.
>> Sorry about that. Patch is fine with fixes tag, I forgot to drop that
>> part of the sentence from the cover letter.
>>
>> Let me know if I need to resend something.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dragos
>
> But why does it need the fixes tag? That one means "if you have
> that hash, you need this patch". Pls do not abuse it for
> optimizations.
>
Well, it is a fix but it happens that the code around still works without
this fix. I figured that it would be better to take it into older stable kernels
just like the other one. But if you consider it an improvement I will send a v2
without the Fixes tag.
Thanks,
Dragos
