linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: blk_rq_dma_map_iter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260113072408.GA26776@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:24:08 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, nitheshshetty@...il.com,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme: blk_rq_dma_map_iter_next is no longer using
 iova state

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 07:58:22PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>> Hu... Why is this not squashed with the previous patch ? If only patch 1 is
>> applied, this will not compile, right ?
>>
> I couldn’t decide whether to use the layering convention or a unified patch,
> so I chose one patch per layer.
> Agreed, independently this doesn't compile, merging make sense.
> I will resend.

Rule number one is: don't break compilation after each step.
Everything else is secondary.

Also I'm only seeing patch 2 anyway, and not patch 1.