Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] mm: Some cleanups for page allocator APIs
"Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-rt-devel,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/10/26 10:36, Brendan Jackman wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 at 09:30, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 14:47:32 +0200 "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 7/3/26 14:31, Brendan Jackman wrote: >> > > Based on mm-new. >> > >> > Seems ready for mm-new to me. I suspect most further non-trivial page >> > allocator work will conflict, so better have it in mm to be based upon. >> >> OK, thanks, added. >> >> I also added some little notes to track Zi Yan's comments. > > Thank Andrew. In this instance, what's the best way to send updates, I > guess now they're in mm-new it's best to just send them as fixups for > you to squash? In reply to the thread? > >> Sashiko had things to say, mainly pre-existing things. >> >> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected] >> >> the xpc_create_gru_mq_uv() issues look like facepalms. > > Oh actually I didn't see the point about the alloc_pages_nolock() > comment before. Other than that, yeah all of those comments have been > discussed during the reviews, or are brokenness in totally unrelated > code. > > There is this where we should probably make a decision (also a > pre-existing issue but this time in mm/page_alloc.c): > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ I think we can fix that in a follow-up patch. Tag it with Fixes: and stable and see what happens. We shouldn't have to rearrange everything for small fixes first just if it's just about !SMP.