Re: [PATCH 2/6] mm: add vma_desc_test_all() and use it
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.nvdimm,org.kernel.vger.linux-cxl,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:08:22 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 04:12:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:50:15 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > erofs and zonefs are using vma_desc_test_any() twice to check whether all > > > of VMA_SHARED_BIT and VMA_MAYWRITE_BIT are set, this is silly, so add > > > vma_desc_test_all() to test all flags and update erofs and zonefs to use > > > it. > > > > > > While we're here, update the helper function comments to be more > > > consistent. > > > > > > Also add the same to the VMA test headers. > > > > fwiw, we have no review tags on this one. > > Based on the discussion we had about this previously I was under the impression > if submitted by a maintainer that wasn't required? Well, it's a gray area. Obviously it's better if people's stuff is checked by co-maintainers or by others. I'm not inclined to make a fuss about it though (hence "fwiw"). Quite a lot of unreviewed maintainer-authored material ends up going upstream and I don't think that's causing much harm. In a lot of cases this is pretty much unavoidable because the patch comes from a sole maintainer (SJ, Sergey, Ulad, Liam come to mind). But when the author has co-maintainers, perhaps those people could step up. > I'll nag people, but I'm a bit surprised if this is why you haven't moved this > to mm-stable, given how trivially obviously correct this patch is. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/pc/devel-series shows my expected merging order. It looks like this one will be in the next batch ->mm-stable.