Re: [PATCH 3/3 v6] virtio: vdpa: new SolidNET DPU driver.

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v6] virtio: vdpa: new SolidNET DPU driver.
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 18:20:56 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221220182026-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y6IfwHicoMojJrIB@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 01:49:04PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 06:46:20PM +0200, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> > 
> > > This does not appear to be a false positive but what was the intent
> > > here? Should the local name variables increase their length or should
> > > the buffer length be reduced?
> > 
> > You're right, the local name variables and snprintf argument don't match.
> > Thanks for noticing.
> > I think that we should increase the name variables  to be
> > SNET_NAME_SIZE bytes long.
> > 
> > How should I proceed from here?
> > Should I create a new version for this patch, or should I fix it in a
> > follow up patch?
> 
> That is up to Michael at the end of the day (each maintainer handles
> their tree differently) but I would recommend sending a follow up fix,
> as it is easy to fold it in if they want to rebase the tree for it or
> just take it as a fix.
> 
> Thanks for the quick triage and response!
> 
> Cheers,
> Nathan

on top is ok but post soon please as i need to send this to Linus.

-- 
MST