linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] vma count: fixes, test and improvements

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: <20250917163231.b5f7b8012367f033a91e6f9b@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 16:32:31 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>, minchan@...nel.org,
 david@...hat.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, rppt@...nel.org,
 pfalcato@...e.de, kernel-team@...roid.com, android-mm@...gle.com, Alexander
 Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan
 Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka
 <vbabka@...e.cz>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@...e.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri
 Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot
 <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
 Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin
 Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Shuah Khan
 <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] vma count: fixes, test and improvements

On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 06:36:34 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:

> >
> > > Perhaps being less accepting of patches during merge window is one aspect,
> > > as the merge window leading up to this cycle was almost the same review
> > > load as when the cycle started.
> >
> > I'm having trouble understanding what you said here?
> 
> Sorry, what I mean to say is that in mm we're pretty open to taking stuff in the
> merge window, esp. now we have mm-new.
> 
> And last merge window my review load felt similar to during a cycle, which
> was kind of crazy.
> 
> So I wonder if we should be less accommodating and simply say 'sorry it's
> the merge window, no submissions accepted'?

hm, I always have a lot of emails piled up by the time mm-stable gets
merged upstream.  That ~1 week between "we merged" and "-rc1" is a nice
time to go through that material and add it to mm-new.  I think it
smooths things out.  I mean, this is peak time for people to be
considering the new material?

(ot, that backlog is always >400 emails and a lot of that gets tossed
out anyway - either it's just too old so I request a refresh or there
was a new version, or review was unpromising, etc).