On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:09:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:53:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, we're at -rc7 and this series is rather in panic mode and it seems > > > unnecessarily risky so I'm inclined to set it aside for this cycle. > > > > > > If the series is considered super desirable and if people are confident > > > that we can address any remaining glitches during two months of -rc > > > then sure, we could push the envelope a bit. But I don't believe this > > > is the case so I'm thinking let's give ourselves another cycle to get > > > this all sorted out? > > > > I didn't think this series was in panic mode with one real issue that > > is not hard to address (memory ordering in > > __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited()) but I'm obviously biased and might > > be missing the big picture. In any case, if it makes people nervous I > > have no objections to your plan. > > Well, I'm soliciting opinions here. What do others think? > > And do you see much urgency with these changes? With apologies to Suren (genuinely!) who is doing great work and is super-responsive here, this really needs another cycle in my opinion. As Vlastimil points out there's some non-trivial bits to go, but I am also firmly of the opinion we need to have as much testing as is practical here. I don't think this is urgent on any timeline so I'd like to join Vlastimil to firmly but politely push for this to land in 6.15 rather than 6.14. Just to reiterate - this is absolutely no reflection on Suren who has been really great here - it is purely a product of the complexity and scope of this change.