On 8/28/26 21:34, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 12:17:57PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 08:21:17PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>> On Thu Aug 27, 2026 at 2:38 PM CEST, =?UTF-8?q?Christian=20K=C3=B6nig?= >>> wrote: >>>> This provides clearer ownership semantics and makes the code more >>>> maintainable by removing the embedded allocation hack. >>> >>> Again, fundamentally disagree; please see [1] for details and reasons. >>> >> >> I think Christian is doing this incrementally rather than as a single >> change across the tree. The last patch [2] in the series removes >> `dma_resv_init` and the `allocated` flag. I believe that was the main >> concern, and it appears to be addressed now. >> >> I'm taking the series for a spin now, as our CI [3] had trouble applying >> this patch. I'll let you know what my testing shows. >> > > I ran our basic CI suite and didn't see any regressions. I also ran some > eviction and shrinker tests that stress interactions with active fences > and exercise individualization paths, and those passed as well.
Thanks, that is exactly what I wanted to know. The whole patch set was AI generated and I still distrust its quality. The interesting thing is that most comments come from Sashiko-bot, so AI is now criticizing the quality of AI generated code ^^. > > Matt > >> [2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/748868/?series=172875&rev=1 >> [3] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/172873/ >> >>> Besides that, I don't really know what to expect from the series. The cover >>> letter says "Refcounting dma_resv v2", yet there's no changelog telling >>> people >>> what has changed since v1. On the other hand, none of the patches has a v2 >>> prefix, so what is it? >> >> Yes, change logs / cover-letter would help as Danilo likely could have >> spotted the above change. Mhm, I though I added that in the cover letter. Regards, Christian. >> >> Matt >> >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
