Hi, I just noted MM maintainer and ML was not CC on the cover-letter (but they were on the relevant patches), adding them now. On 10/19/24 10:27, Yunsheng Lin wrote: > On 10/19/2024 1:39 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> So I still think this set should be split in half in order to make >> this easier to review. The ones I have provided a review-by for so far >> seem fine to me. I really think if you just submitted that batch first >> we can get that landed and let them stew in the kernel for a bit to >> make sure we didn't miss anything there. > > It makes sense to me too that it might be better to get those submitted > to get more testing if there is no more comment about it. > > I am guessing they should be targetting net-next tree to get more > testing as all the callers of page_frag API seem to be in the > networking, right? > > Hi, David, Jakub & Paolo > It would be good if those patches are just cherry-picked from this > patchset as those patches with 'Reviewed-by' tag seem to be applying > cleanly. Or any better suggestion here? We can cherry pick the patches from the posted series, applying the review tags as needed, but we need an explicit ack from the mm maintainer, given the mentioned patches touch mostly such code. I would like to avoid repeating a recent incident of unintentionally stepping on other subsystem toes. @Andrew: are you ok with the above plan? Thank you, Paolo
