Re: [PATCH liburing] examples/zcrx: don't forget to sync dmabuf

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 10/16/26 10:47 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/16/26 17:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/16/26 10:36 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> On 10/16/26 17:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/26 10:25 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>>> dma-bufs are not always coherent and we need to sync it before
>>>>> accessing. Use proper dma-buf API for that.
>>>>
>>>> Can we get a Fixes tag for this please? Other fixes from today
>>>> lacked that as well, please always add fixes tags.
>>>
>>> There was no "fixes" today.
>>
>> Sure let's argue that, I merged 4 fixes from you this morning. None of
>> them had Fixes tags.
> 
> There is nothing to argue about, I doubt anyone would call a
> tabulation change or adding a kerneldoc "a fix".

But we're talking about it, now another round... And justifying it. The
way I see it, anything that fixes something in a previous patch is, by
definition, a fix for that patch and should be labeled as such. That's
usually not something that people question. It doesn't need to fix
something that's functionally broken to be labeled a fix. For the
latter, if it's broken in a user visible way, we'd add stable to that
patch as well. Or just send it manually too, if it's missing from the
patch. That's the definition I use as the maintainer of those areas, and
that's why I ask for them.

-- 
Jens Axboe