Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Refactor reserved memory regions handling code

[Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:18 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 11:08:54 +0100 Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> > The reserved memory regions handling code was reworked to handle
> > unlimited so called "static" memory nodes in commit 00c9a452a235 ("of:
> > reserved_mem: Add code to dynamically allocate reserved_mem array").
> >
> > The side effect of this rework was a set of bugs fixed later by commits
> > 0fd17e598333 ("of: reserved_mem: Allow reserved_mem framework detect
> > "cma=" kernel param") and 2c223f7239f3 ("of: reserved_mem: Restructure
> > call site for dma_contiguous_early_fixup()"). As a result, the code in
> > drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c became a mix of generic code and CMA
> > specific fixups.
> >
> > In this patchset I try to untangle this spaghetti and perform some code
> > cleanup. I hope nothing breaks this time.
>
> AI review wasn't able to get all the patches to apply, but it asked a
> few questions:
>
>         https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260323100901.4079171-1-m.szyprowski@samsung.com

Now I get these in several reviews. Just posting links here really
doesn't flow with the review process. How are we supposed to answer
when AI is wrong? Manually quote everything? No thanks.

To answer this one, I think 1 comment is wrong, 1 is right, and 1 I'm
not sure about.

Don't get me wrong, I think this all looks promising. I know email
support is planned, but please get that in place before sending
reports. Really, I'd rather just get the emails or mbox to review
first and then decide what to send for things I maintain. At least
initially.

Rob