Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cxl/cdat: Fix header sum value in CDAT checksum

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:30:14 -0800
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 17:33:04 -0800
> > > Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >   
> > 
> > [snip]
> >   
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231116-fix-cdat-devm-free-v1-1-b148b40707d7@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: aba578bdace5 ("hw/cxl/cdat: CXL CDAT Data Object Exchange implementation")
> > > > Cc: Huai-Cheng Kuo <hchkuo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>  
> > > 
> > > This only becomes a problem with the addition of DCDs so I'm not going to rush it in.  
> > 
> > That makes sense.
> >   
> > > Btw cc qemu-devel on qemu patches!
> > >   
> > 
> > Ah...  yea my bad.  
> 
> Might I also ask for a more prominent way to quickly identify kernel vs
> qemu patches, like a "[QEMU PATCH]" prefix? I tend to look for "hw/" in
> the diff path names, but the kernel vs qemu question is ambiguous when
> looking at the linux-cxl Patchwork queue.
I'm not sure if the QEMU maintainers would be that keen on a tag there.
Maybe just stick qemu/cxl: in the cover letter naming as a prefix?
[PATCH 0/4] qemu/cxl: Whatever the change is

> 
> @Jonathan, what do you think of having the kernel patchwork-bot watch
> your tree for updating patch state (if it is not happening already).
My QEMU tree is a bit intermittent and frequently rebased as I'm juggling
too many patches. Not sure we'd get a good match.  Mind you I've
never tried the bot so not even sure how to configure it.

Jonathan