Re: mm.git review status at 7.2-rc7

On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:46:45 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:37:13AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > > We really need more maple_tree reviewers.
> > > 
> > >> Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]> (6 total)
> > >>     "mm/huge_memory: separate out CONFIG_PERSISTENT_HUGE_ZERO_FOLIO logic"
> > >>         Link: https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected]
> > > 
> > > I want to review that. I am still not convinced that we really need that right
> > > now. The fix was the important bit.
> > 
> > Oh, good, we fast-tracked an unreviewed cleanup as a stable fix upstream.
> > 
> > What is happening.

Yes, the fix should have been tested, sent and merged as a standalone
thing.  But I'm reluctant to split a series because that results in
merging code which the author didn't test.

> Meanwhile a well-reviewed series which includes bugfixes is apparently
> not even being considered for this merge window because I spent a lot of
> time figuring out what Sashiko was concerned about?
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/
> 
> This was originally posted 5 weeks ago (ie when rc2 was current), so I
> don't understand why it's not being considered.  It's been tested by the
> people most likely to uncover bugs in it.  It's not going to get any
> realistic testing in -next because most people use neither hugetlb nor
> hwpoison.

Sorry, this simply fell through a crack.  Happens sometimes - poke me!