Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 08:14:37 -0800
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
        jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
        willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
        peterx@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, chriscli@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
        gurua@...gle.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com,
        leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com,
        michalechner92@...glemail.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/nommu: remove unnecessary VMA locking

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:05 AM David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Just a general comment: usually, if review of the original series is
> >> still going on, it makes a lot more sense to raise such things in the
> >> original series so the author can fixup while things are still in
> >> mm-unstable. Once the series is in mm-stable, it's a different story. In
> >> that case, it is usually good to have the mail subjects be something
> >> like  "[PATCH mm-stable 1/1] ...".
> >
> > Ok... For my education, do you mean the title of this patch should
> > somehow reflect that it should be folded into the original patch? Just
> > trying to understand the actionable item here. How would you change
> > this patch when posting for mm-unstable and for mm-stable?
>
> For patches that fixup something in mm-stable (stable commit ID but not
> yet master -> we cannot squash anymore so we need separate commits),
> it's good to include "mm-stable". The main difference to patches that
> target master is that by indicating "mm-stable", everyone knows that
> this is not broken in some upstream/production kernel.
>
>
> For patches that fixup something that is in mm-unstable (no stable
> commit ID -> still under review and fixup easily possible), IMHO we
> distinguish between two cases:
>
> (1) You fixup your own patches: simply send the fixup as reply to the
> original patch. Andrew will pick it up and squash it before including it
> in mm-stable. Sometimes a complete resend of a series makes sense instead.
>
> (2) You fixup patches from someone else: simply raise it as a review
> comment in reply to the original patch. It might make sense to send a
> patch, but usually you just raise the issue to the patch author as a
> review comment and the author will address that. Again, Andrew will pick
> it up and squash it before moving it to mm-stable.
>
>
> That way, it's clearer when stumbling over patches on the mailing list
> if they fix a real issue in upstream, fix a issue in
> soon-to-be-upstream, or are simply part of a WIP series that is still
> under review.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, David. I'll post fixups to
mm-unstable patches by replying to the original ones from now on.
Interestingly enough, I have another fix today (internal syzcaller
found a potential deadlock) which might be interesting enough to be in
a separate patch. So, I'll post it as a separate patch and we can
discuss whether it should be squashed or kept apart.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists