Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] mm/hmm: Add mmap lock-drop support for userfaultfd-backed mappings
Stanislav Kinsburskii <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:57:55 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.freedesktop.lists.nouveau,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-hyperv,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <alVRU38lMfvmUFqJ@skinsburskii> |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 20:22:33 -0700 Stanislav Kinsburskii <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 03:11:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 14:26:20 -0700 Stanislav Kinsburskii <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > This series extends the HMM framework to support userfaultfd-backed memory > > > > by allowing the mmap read lock to be dropped during hmm_range_fault(). > > > > > > Thanks. This seems fairly mature and mostly-reviewed so I'll give it a > > > spin in mm.git's mm-new branch. > > > > > > Unfortunately Sashiko wasn't able to apply this or v7. I'm not sure > > > what base you were using. Hopefully there's a reason for a v9 so we > > > can retry this. > > > > > > > I rebased this series on top of mm-new right before sending it out. > > Should I have used a different branch? > > mm-new is good - Sashiko attempts that. But it's changing rapidly at > this point in the development cycle. > I’d like to send another revision addressing a few comments and also replace the `max/max_t` check with something simpler. Which branch should I base it on so that Sashiko can apply it successfully? Or would it be better to send fixups against `mm-new`? Thanks, Stanislav