> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] udmabuf: Ensure to perform cache > synchronisation in begin_cpu_udmabuf() > > Hi, > > On 07.07.26 08:16, Kasireddy, Vivek wrote: > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] udmabuf: Ensure to perform cache > >> synchronisation in begin_cpu_udmabuf() > >> > >> Hi, sorry for the noise - adding more udmabuf maintainers in case > Vivek > >> doesn't have time to look into it atm, just to ensure people are > aware. > >> > >> Gerd, Sumit, Christian: this is a simple fix for a minor regression in > >> the upcoming 7.2 release - it would therefor be great if anyone could > >> pick it to the fixes branch :) > > Hi Robert, > > > > Your patch LGTM. If no one else picks it up soon, I'll push it to drm- > misc-fixes in the > > next few days. > > gentle ping ;) Would be great if this could go into this weeks fixes push. Hi Robert,
I pushed your patch to drm-misc-fixes last week, so it should be able to make it to this week's fixes. Thanks, Vivek > > Thanks and best regards, > > Robert > > > > > Thanks, > > Vivek > > > >> Thanks and best regards, > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> On 29.06.26 13:58, Robert Mader wrote: > >>> On 29.06.26 13:48, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 3:57 PM Robert Mader > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Mikhail, > >>>>> > >>>>> thanks for the quick review! And no worries, I was very happy > about > >>>>> your > >>>>> patch, which is why I looked deeper into it in the first place. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given the patch fixes a newly introduced regression (and is very > >>>>> simple), do you think there's a chance to still get it into 7.1 - or > >>>>> would it need to go via the usual 7.2/7.3 release schedule + > >> backport? > >>>> Hi Robert, > >>>> > >>>> The timing depends on Vivek and the drm-misc maintainers, not > me, > >>>> but here's the situation as I understand it: > >>>> > >>>> The original commit 504e2b4ab97a only landed in 7.2 (it went into > >>>> drm-misc-next, not drm-misc-fixes). So 7.1 was never affected by > >>>> the regression -- there's nothing to fix there. > >>>> > >>>> For 7.2: since your patch fixes a regression introduced in the same > >>>> cycle, it would ideally go through drm-misc-fixes to land in 7.2 > >>>> before release, avoiding a broken commit in the final tree. That's > >>>> the cleanest outcome. > >>>> > >>>> Adding Vivek -- he pushed the original patch and would know > >> whether > >>>> drm-misc-fixes is the right route at this point in the cycle. > >>> Hi Mikhail, I of course meant 7.2, not 7.1, sorry! And agreed, that > >>> would be ideal / perfect. > >>> > >> -- > >> Robert Mader > >> Consultant Software Developer > >> > >> Collabora Ltd. > >> Platinum Building, St John's Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS, UK > >> Registered in England & Wales, no. 5513718
