On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:24:23PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 16:38:04 -0700 Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > August, yikes, I thought it was much more recent. > > > > > > it seems that Hugh and me haven't reached a consensus here. > > > Can, you, please, not merge this patch into 5.9, so we would have > > > more time to find a solution, acceptable for all? > > > > No probs. I already had a big red asterisk on it ;) > > I've a suspicion that Andrew might be tiring of his big red asterisk, > and wanting to unload > mm-vmstat-fix-proc-sys-vm-stat_refresh-generating-false-warnings.patch > mm-vmstat-fix-proc-sys-vm-stat_refresh-generating-false-warnings-fix.patch > mm-vmstat-fix-proc-sys-vm-stat_refresh-generating-false-warnings-fix-2.patch > into 5.12. > > I would prefer not, and reiterate my Nack: but no great harm will > befall the cosmos if he overrules that, and it does go through to > 5.12 - I'll just want to revert it again later. And I do think a > more straightforward way of suppressing those warnings would be just > to delete the code that issues them, rather than brushing them under > a carpet of overtuning. I'm actually fine with either option. My only concern is that if somebody will try to use the hugetlb_cma boot option AND /proc/sys/vm/stat_refresh together, they will get a false warning and report them to mm@ or will waste their time trying to debug a non-existing problem. It's not the end of the world. We can also make the warning conditional on CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, for example. Please, let me know what's your preferred way to go forward. Thanks!