Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220830093207.951704-1-koba.ko@canonical.com>
 <20220929165710.biw4yry4xuxv7jbh@cantor> <YzXRbBvv+2MGE6Eq@matsya>
 <4394cae0b5830533ed5464817da2c52119e30cea.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAJB-X+XYq6JRewKkPu0OSnEhJAsW5qFcs2ym2c+wErxWgoXGDA@mail.gmail.com> <20220930055619.ntgr2yobc5euzz6y@cantor>
In-Reply-To: <20220930055619.ntgr2yobc5euzz6y@cantor>
From:   Koba Ko <koba.ko@canonical.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:25:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJB-X+X2k_TCvocoiFsPr=ehSMOHZkBkOv_P540q=_jmxXgYTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dmaengine: Fix client_count is countered one more incorrectly.
To:     Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 12:44:22PM +0800, Koba Ko wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:26 AM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2022-09-29 at 22:40 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On 29-09-22, 09:57, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 05:32:07PM +0800, Koba Ko wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vinod,
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts on this patch? We recently came across this issue as
> > > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > I have only patch 3, where is the rest of the series... ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never found anything else when I looked at this earlier.
> > > The one thing I can think of is perhaps Koba was seeing multiple
> > > issues at time when he found this, like:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20220901144712.1192698-1-koba.ko@canonical.com/
> > >
> > > That was also being seen by an engineer here that was looking
> > > at client_count code.
> > >
> > > Koba, was this meant to be part of a series, or by itself?
> > >
> >
> > Jerry, you're right, it's a part of the series.
>
> Hi Koba,
>
> If it is meant to be part of a series, where are patches 1 and 2?
> The ccp patch has already been applied by the crypto maintainers if that
> was meant to be part of a series with this patch.
>
> Regards,
> Jerry

Sorry, I misunderstood. actually, there's a mistake on the [3/3] part.
I created patches for the mainline kernel before sending them to the upstream.
Then I found the first has existed on the patchwork, so removed the
[2/3] part for ccp patch and forgot to modify for this.
Should I fix this and re-submit v2(also add those review-by)?

>
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jerry
> > >
>