linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] mm/khugepaged: fix dirty page handling for MADV

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: <12b6747e-b844-4931-9918-fd095a6d772b@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 10:37:49 +0530
From: "Garg, Shivank" <shivankg@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Nico Pache
 <npache@...hat.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
 Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
 Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] mm/khugepaged: fix dirty page handling for
 MADV_COLLAPSE

On 1/19/2026 1:52 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please tolerate a little whining about the timeliess here.  We're at
> -rc6, v4 was added to mm.git over a month ago, had quite a lot of
> review, this is very close to being moved into the mm-stable branch and now
> we get v5.  Argh.
> 
I sincerely apologize for this.

I had this doubt on sending an incremental patch or V5:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/7a42515f-ae57-4f4d-831c-87689930a797@amd.com

>> V5:
>> - In patch 2/2, Simplify dirty writeback retry logic (David)
> Are you sure this is the only change?  It looks like a lot for a
> simplification and I'm wondering if we should retain the v4 series and
> defer a simplification for separate consideration during the next
> cycle.

Yes, patch 1/2 is unchanged and patch 2/2 is the only change. 
The diff looks larger due to code movement but logic is actually simpler now.

I completely understand if you prefer to keep V4 and defer this 
refactoring. I'm sorry for creating this late-cycle churn. Please let me 
know what you'd prefer and I'll follow your guidance.
Thank you for your patience.

Regards,
Shivank