linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mm: introduce THP deferred setting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <db190425-9959-4d0c-b928-c537c69bc5a7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:24:45 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
 rdunlap@...radead.org, mhocko@...e.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 zokeefe@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com, jglisse@...gle.com, cl@...two.org,
 jack@...e.cz, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, will@...nel.org, tiwai@...e.de,
 catalin.marinas@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com, dev.jain@....com,
 raquini@...hat.com, aarcange@...hat.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com,
 vishal.moola@...il.com, sunnanyong@...wei.com, usamaarif642@...il.com,
 wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, ziy@...dia.com, shuah@...nel.org,
 peterx@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, ryan.roberts@....com,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, baohua@...nel.org,
 mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
 corbet@....net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] mm: introduce THP deferred setting

>>
>> Anyhow, to me the dependency is obvious, but I've followed the MM meeting
>> discussions, development etc.
> 
> Right but is it clear to Andrew? I mean the cover letter was super unclear
> to me.

I mean, assuming that it would not be clear to Andrew (and I think it is 
clear to Andrew), I we would get CCed on these emails and could 
immediately scream STOOOOOP :)

And until this would hit mm-stable, a bit more time would pass.

> 
> What's to prevent things getting merged out of order?

Fortunately, there are still people working here and not machines (at 
least, that's what I hope).

> And do people 'just
> have to remember' to resend?

Yes, in this case Nico wants to get his stuff upstream and must drive it 
once the dependencies are met IMHO.

> 
> If there's a requirement related to the ordering of these series it really
> has to be expressed very clearly.

Jup. I'll note that for now there was no strict rule what to tag as RFC 
and what not that I know of. Of course, if people send broken, 
half-implemented, untested ... crap, it should *clearly* be RFC.

People should be spelling out dependencies in any case (especially for 
non-RFC versions) clearly.

I'll note that even if there would be a rule, I'm afraid we don't have a 
good place to document it (and not sure if people would find it or even 
try finding it ...) :/

A big problem is when some subsystems have their own rules for how to 
handle such things. That causes major pain for contributors ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb