On 02/29/24 at 04:31pm, Huang, Rulin wrote: > Apologizes for the confusions the original format led to and thanks so > much for your guidance which will surely enhance the efficiency when > communicating with the kernel community. > > We've submitted the v6 of the patch, which more rigorously checks > va_flag with BUG_ON, and at the same time ensures the additional > performance overhead is subtle. In this modification we also moved the > position of the macros because the definition of VMAP_RAM should be > placed before alloc_vmap_area(). > > Much appreciation from you and Uladzislau on the code refinement. And at > the same time, we'd also respect the internal review comments and > suggestions from Tim and Colin, without which this patch cannot be > qualified to be sent out for your review. Although the current > implementation has been much different from its first version, I'd still > recommend properly recognizing their contributions with the "review-by" > tag. Does it make sense? Just checked Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, seems below tags are more appropriate? Because the work you mentioned is your internal cooperation and effort, may not be related to upstream patch reviewing. Co-developed-by: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: "King, Colin" <colin.king@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: "King, Colin" <colin.king@xxxxxxxxx>
