From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: vmalloc: Switch to find_unlink_vmap_area() in vm_unmap_ram()
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 13:47:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y62Mb8NtZQkTmlfV@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221228154707.432e8900855122712f98037c@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 03:47:07PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 17:41:48 +0100 Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Don't we also need to remove the manual unlink that was done
> > > here previously? Actually it seems like that manual unlink is missing
> > > after patch 1, creating a bisection hazard. So either add it there,
> > > or just fold this patch into the previous one.
> > >
> > Right. In terms of bisection it is not so good. I think folding is the
> > best.
> >
> > Andrew, could you please fold this patch into the:
>
> which patch ;)
>
Currently the next-20221226 contains three patches:
<snip>
[1]
commit c83b70c3cc1ecf99897ca0ea6e44aa2125a61ccb
Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 21 18:44:54 2022 +0100
mm: vmalloc: replace BUG_ON() by WARN_ON_ONCE()
[2]
commit 8a85ea97b35924ee39d51e00ecb3f6d07f748a36
Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 21 18:44:53 2022 +0100
mm: vmalloc: switch to find_unlink_vmap_area() in vm_unmap_ram()
[3]
commit a7c84c673c71cdfad20fe25e5d2051ed229859f7
Author: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Dec 21 18:44:52 2022 +0100
mm: vmalloc: avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twise in __vunmap()
<snip>
It would be good if you could fold [2] into [3] making it as one
patch. The problem is that, if we leave it as it is, the bisection
mechanism would consider [3] as a buggy patch, because it is not
fully accomplished and depends on [2].
Is that OK for you, i mean to squash on your own? Or i just should
resend one more time?
Thank you in advance!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-29 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-22 19:00 [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: vmalloc: Avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twice in __vunmap() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2022-12-22 19:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] mm: vmalloc: Switch to find_unlink_vmap_area() in vm_unmap_ram() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2022-12-23 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-12-23 16:41 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-12-28 23:47 ` Andrew Morton
2022-12-29 12:47 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2022-12-29 23:17 ` Andrew Morton
2022-12-31 9:17 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-12-22 19:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: vmalloc: Replace BUG_ON() by WARN_ON_ONCE() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2022-12-23 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-12-22 20:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: vmalloc: Avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twice in __vunmap() Lorenzo Stoakes
2022-12-23 16:42 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2022-12-23 8:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-12-23 16:43 ` Uladzislau Rezki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y62Mb8NtZQkTmlfV@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).