On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 06:25:53AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:02 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 07:25:48PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 7:18 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:04:56 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 04:26:10PM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > These patches are not intended to be merged through the bpf tree. > > > > > > They are included into the patchset to make bpf selftests pass and for > > > > > > informational purposes. > > > > > > It's written in the cover letter. > > > > > ... > > > > > > Maybe I had to just list their titles in the cover letter. Idk what's > > > > > > the best option for such cross-subsystem dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > We had several situations in the past releases where dependent patches > > > > > were merged into multiple trees. For that to happen cleanly from git pov > > > > > one of the maintainers need to create a stable branch/tag and let other > > > > > maintainers pull that branch into different trees. This way the sha-s > > > > > stay the same and no conflicts arise during the merge window. > > > > > In this case sounds like the first 4 patches are in mm tree already. > > > > > Is there a branch/tag I can pull to get the first 4 into bpf-next? > > > > > > > > Not really, at present. This is largely by design, although it does cause > > > > this problem once or twice a year. > > > > > > > > These four patches: > > > > > > > > mm-memcontrol-use-helpers-to-read-pages-memcg-data.patch > > > > mm-memcontrol-slab-use-helpers-to-access-slab-pages-memcg_data.patch > > > > mm-introduce-page-memcg-flags.patch > > > > mm-convert-page-kmemcg-type-to-a-page-memcg-flag.patch > > > > > > > > are sufficiently reviewed - please pull them into the bpf tree when > > > > convenient. Once they hit linux-next, I'll drop the -mm copies and the > > > > bpf tree maintainers will then be responsible for whether & when they > > > > get upstream. > > > > > > That's certainly an option if they don't depend on other patches in the mm tree. > > > Roman probably knows best ? > > > > Yes, they are self-contained and don't depend on any patches in the mm tree. > > > > The patch "mm, kvm: account kvm_vcpu_mmap to kmemcg" in mm tree > depends on that series. True, and I believe there are (or will be) more dependencies like this. But it should be fine, we only have to make sure that these 4 patches will be merged first. Thanks!
