On 09/08/19 18:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:00:26PM +0300, Adalbert Laz?r wrote: >> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h >> @@ -417,8 +417,10 @@ PAGEFLAG(Idle, idle, PF_ANY) >> */ >> #define PAGE_MAPPING_ANON 0x1 >> #define PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE 0x2 >> +#define PAGE_MAPPING_REMOTE 0x4 > Uh. How do you know page->mapping would otherwise have bit 2 clear? > Who's guaranteeing that? > > This is an awfully big patch to the memory management code, buried in > the middle of a gigantic series which almost guarantees nobody would > look at it. I call shenanigans.Are you calling shenanigans on the patch submitter (which is gratuitous) or on the KVM maintainers/reviewers? It's not true that nobody would look at it. Of course no one from linux-mm is going to look at it, but the maintainer that looks at the gigantic series is very much expected to look at it and explain to the submitter that this patch is unacceptable as is. In fact I shouldn't have to to explain this to you; you know better than believing that I would try to sneak it past the mm folks. I am puzzled. Paolo
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:29:07AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:> On 09/08/19 18:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 07:00:26PM +0300, Adalbert Laz?r wrote: > >> +++ b/include/linux/page-flags.h > >> @@ -417,8 +417,10 @@ PAGEFLAG(Idle, idle, PF_ANY) > >> */ > >> #define PAGE_MAPPING_ANON 0x1 > >> #define PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE 0x2 > >> +#define PAGE_MAPPING_REMOTE 0x4 > > Uh. How do you know page->mapping would otherwise have bit 2 clear? > > Who's guaranteeing that? > > > > This is an awfully big patch to the memory management code, buried in > > the middle of a gigantic series which almost guarantees nobody would > > look at it. I call shenanigans. > > Are you calling shenanigans on the patch submitter (which is gratuitous) > or on the KVM maintainers/reviewers?On the patch submitter, of course. How can I possibly be criticising you for something you didn't do?
On 13/08/19 13:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:>>> >>> This is an awfully big patch to the memory management code, buried in >>> the middle of a gigantic series which almost guarantees nobody would >>> look at it. I call shenanigans. >> Are you calling shenanigans on the patch submitter (which is gratuitous) >> or on the KVM maintainers/reviewers? > > On the patch submitter, of course. How can I possibly be criticising you > for something you didn't do?No idea. "Nobody would look at it" definitely includes me though. In any case, water under the bridge. The submitter did duly mark the series as RFC, I don't see anything wrong in what he did apart from not having testcases. :) Paolo