Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] Add dmabuf read/write via io_uring

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

On 10/13/26 20:06, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 02:21:41PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I've queued this series up for some testing, in a separate branch. JFYI.
>>
>> More testing it obviously good.  I've been waiting for addressing
>> of the Sashiko comments on the nvme patches before doing more ACKs,
>> and while I can't really judge the code those in the dma-buf code
>> also look somewhat serious.  So it would be useful to get them addressed
>> and the series reposted.  Same for folding in the PI vs dmabuf fix
>> from Anuj, although making the combination work would of course be
>> even better.
>>
> 
> Oops, I forgot to look at Sashiko's feedback when I acked the dma-buf
> patch. I think the two cleanup issues are valid,

I stopped answering to sashiko as it repeats the same from version
to version when false positive. Those two are warning paths, which
should never happen, I'd rather leak than crash on double free or
so.

  but the reclaim-related
> ones are not. 

Thanks for confirming, you already elaborated on one of them in
previous revision, the new one looked to me as the same class of
issue as well.

I'm not sure why Sashiko is confused here.
> 
> I wonder if there are some shrinkers in the tree that incorrectly take
> dma-resv locks in a blocking manner. They should only use trylocks in
> shrinkers and direct reclaim paths.
-- 
Pavel Begunkov