[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f35393c-488c-4d3e-9f85-3e548fa32f69@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:12:05 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, weixugc@...gle.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org,
surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, riel@...riel.com,
harry.yoo@...cle.com, jannh@...gle.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
baohua@...nel.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: Fix uffd-wp bit loss when batching file
folio unmapping
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 11:57:46AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>
> That should likely be factored out in an independent patch.
>
> And while we do that, we should likely rename the function to indicate that
> we consume ptes.
>
> That patch should also describe why the change is ok; it's not just simple
> code movement. :)
Right, but this patch is to correct something in a series that's not yet
landed, it's not a hotfix, rather this should be a report on Baolin's
series rather than splitting the converastion into the actual thread where
Dev found an issue and an invalid patch submission here.
Can we try to get the conversation over there? Feel like maybe it's already
messed up... sigh.
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> David
Thanks, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists