Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] mm/hmm: Clarify notifier retry state and scope HMM timeouts
"Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:03:39 +0100
| Newsgroups | org.freedesktop.lists.nouveau,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <alevUbqdUmNkOef_@lucifer> |
On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 12:02:10PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 07:42:48AM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote: > > > > > Stanislav Kinsburskii (4): > > > > fixup! mm/hmm: add hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for mmap lock-drop support > > > > fixup! drm/nouveau: use hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for SVM faults > > > > fixup! accel/amdxdna: use hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for range population > > > > fixup! drm/gpusvm: use hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for range faults > > > > > > Why a fixup series instead of properly resending the full thing? > > > > > > > The goal was to get a Sashiko review, and v8 has already been applied to > > both `mm-new` and `linux-next`. > > I think if you send the whole thing with a base-commit tag that > specifies a real base commit in linux-next sashiko should work > > Jason Oh so just use b4 then :)