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

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

On 10/16/26 17:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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, thank you for the insight. It was confusing because the public
documentation refer to bugs, but since you use it differently, I'll make
sure all patches that correct typos and indentation, add new docs,
introduce new APIs and extending existing ones, or do other enhancements
have a "Fixes" tag for you as the maintainer of those areas.

-- 
Pavel Begunkov