On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:02 PM Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 10:28:03PM GMT, Pedro Falcato wrote: > > We were doing an extra mmap tree traversal just to check if the entire > > range is modifiable. This can be done when we iterate through the VMAs > > instead. > > > > Note that this removes the arch_unmap() callsites and therefore isn't > > quite ready for Proper(tm) upstreaming. > > If this isn't ready for upstreaming which is it being submitted as a patch > series and not an RFC or such? Crap... I wasn't sure whether to mark this as RFC or not (I wasn't sure if this could be applied as a hotfix, yes it's a little risky but the changes themselves are simple, and fix an active regression). I'll err on the side of caution next time :) > > Liam is likely to do some significant rework of this arch_unmap() stuff > soon, and is certainly significantly reworking the munmap() logic, so to FWIW there was a new series posted at https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20240807124103.85644-1-mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m353eb23fc263033c9ca023ead6fa82d1a1ff3263 that do away with arch_unmap altogether (resulting from our exchange on the regression thread). > avoid conflicts it goes doubly that if this isn't meant for upstream then > it should be RFC'd. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@xxxxxxxxx> > > This patch doesn't apply in the mm-unstable tree. If you want your series > to come in through the mm tree you need to rebase on this. > > I made a major change to file structure which moves a bunch of mm/mmap.c > stuff to mm/vma.c (similarly moving things around in headers), which is > why. > > It also means I can't sensibly review it... :) ACK. I'll rebase on mm-unstable for v2, sorry for the time lost. -- Pedro
