Re: [PATCH 1/3] soc cache: L3 cache driver for HiSilicon SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 05/02/2026 12:19, wangyushan wrote:
> 
> On 2/5/2026 5:37 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 03/02/2026 18:19, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, at 17:18, Yushan Wang wrote:
>>>> The driver will create a file of `/dev/hisi_l3c` on init, mmap
>>>> operations to it will allocate a memory region that is guaranteed to be
>>>> placed in L3 cache.
>>>>
>>>> The driver also provides unmap() to deallocated the locked memory.
>>>>
>>>> The driver also provides an ioctl interface for user to get cache lock
>>>> information, such as lock restrictions and locked sizes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yushan Wang <wangyushan12@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Yushan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your submission. Since we are in the last week of
>>> the merge window, this is not going to be linux-7.0 material,
>>> but I'll have a quick look for now.
>>
>>
>> To be clear - this is a v3 but with removed previous history...
>>
>> Previous version:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217102357.1730573-2-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
>>
>> Or even v4?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250122065803.3363926-2-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
>>
>> Yushan, please start versioning your patches correctly. Use b4 or git
>> format-patch -vx
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Sorry about the confusing versions, the complete history is as below:
> 
> Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250107132907.3521574-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com
> 
> Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250122065803.3363926-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
> 
> Link to RFC v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251125080542.3721829-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
> 
> Link to RFC v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217102357.1730573-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
> 
> Link to v1 again (this message): https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260203161843.649417-1-wangyushan12@huawei.com/
> 
>>
>> Otherwise, please explain us how can we compare it with `b4 diff` with
>> previous version?
>>
>> Sending something AGAIN as v1 ignoring entire previous submission is
>> clear no go. Like you are trying till it succeeds. Negative review?
>> Let's try from v1 this time...
>>
>> This is not correct and it should not be my task to find your previous
>> discussions and decipher this v1.
> 
> I did spin 2 versions to mainline as the actual v1, the thread was quiet.
> Then I made a major refactor to it and sent it as RFC, the thread went
> quiet again but some compile check issues popped up. I spinned 2
> versions of RFC for the compile issues and removed RFC in this version
> since no strong objection showed up.
> 
> Apologize that I broke the rules and any inconvenience caused by it.
> As there's little discussion in previous patches, is it OK that we start
> here as v1?

No, it is not okay. Your patchset continues and entire previous feedback
and history is important. Otherwise why would I review this if I can as
well ignore it and wait for next year you sending another v1?

Best regards,
Krzysztof