Re: [PATCH] mm: Convert memory block states (MEM_*) macros to enum

On 10/28/25 13:34, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:53:57PM +0000, Israel Batista wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/25 16:46, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So why are we naming the type... does drgn require it?
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't need to be named, but as David pointed out, we could find
>> where these values are being used and replace the type with the proper
>> enum. I quickly grepped the codebase and it seems doable, I'm probably
>> adding these changes to the next version of this patch since there are
>> some things to fix anyway.
> 
> I mean we're getting a little out of scope here but fine, if these are not
> in fact used as flags, I don't mind, just remove the silly 1 << x values
> while you do it.

Could you also point me to what tree is preferred to base the patches
for the mm subsystem, please? There are differences between linux-next
and the current version of mainline regarding these values.
(MEM_PREPARE_OFFLINE and MEM_FINISH_OFFLINE are being removed on
linux-next).

So I would appreciate if you could indicate what tree is the best to
base my changes, as I'm not that familiar with this subsystem.