On 2026-10-21 at 12:45 +1100, Karl Mehltretter <[email protected]> wrote... > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 03:20:29PM +0100, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 10:16:26PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote: > > > > > I haven't had a chance to look at these patches yet, but if some of them > > > are > > > fixing bugs in Jason's series it might be best for us to fold them into > > > that > > > series, with correct attribution of course. Anyway I will take a closer > > > look in > > > the morning. > > > > Are any fixing bugs in tree right now? I think one of them is already > > applied from someone else.. > > > > Good catch. None of these fixes a bug in the current mainline tree. I > based the series on the stale c37cf2824740d topic and missed two fixes > that landed in mainline afterward: > > - patch 4 is already covered more broadly by f2d70dbd3dce > ("iommufd: Destroy the pages content after detaching from dmabuf"); > - patch 5 duplicates Ankit Soni's e745cd2c749e > ("iommufd: Take dma_resv lock before dma_buf_unpin() in release path"). > > Patches 1-3 address lifecycle issues introduced by the PAL conversion, > and patch 6 tests those paths. > > My main goal with this RFC was to put the concrete lifecycle issues and > tests on the table and get the discussion moving. > > I am not concerned about preserving these as separate commits for > attribution purposes. Please fold or rework any useful pieces into the > mapping-type series as makes sense.
Will do. I hope to post a v2 later this week so will fold them into that. Thanks. - Alistair > Thanks, > Karl
