[PATCH 4/8] accel/qaic: delete qaic_bo.handle

[Jeff Hugo]

On 6/2/2025 8:43 AM, Simona Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 09:15:22AM -0600, Jeff Hugo wrote:
>> On 5/28/2025 3:13 AM, Simona Vetter wrote:
>>> Handles are per-file, not global, so this makes no sense. Plus it's
>>> set only after calling drm_gem_handle_create(), and drivers are not
>>> allowed to further intialize a bo after that function has published it
>>> already.
>>
>> intialize -> initialize
>>
>>> It is also entirely unused, which helps enormously with removing it
>>> :-)
>>
>> There is a downstream reference to it which hasn't quite made it upstream
>> yet, but tweaking that should be fine. This is clearly a problem anyways, so
>> we'll need to find a solution regardless. Thank you very much for the audit.
>>
>>> Since we're still holding a reference to the bo nothing bad can
>>> happen, hence not cc: stable material.
>>>
>>> Cc: Jeff Hugo <jeff.hugo at oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> Cc: Carl Vanderlip <quic_carlv at quicinc.com>
>>> Cc: linux-arm-msm at vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Simona Vetter <simona.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simona Vetter <simona.vetter at intel.com>
>>
>> SOB chain seems weird to me. I got this email from @ffwll.ch, which would be
>> the author. Where is @intel.com contributing to the handoff of the patch?
> 
> I work for intel, so I just whack both of my emails on there for sob
> purposes. The intel email tends to be a blackhole for public mail, which
> is why I don't use it as From: for anything public.>
>> Overall, looks good to me. Seems like either I can ack this, and you can
>> merge, or I can just take it forward. I have no preference.  Do you?
> 
> Whatever you like most, I'll resend the series with the wrong patches
> dropped soon anyway.

I think I'll apply it this week, with the typo fixed. Then I can 
mentally check it off my list as closed.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Hugo <jeff.hugo at oss.qualcomm.com>

-Jeff