On 2024/10/24 17:05, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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 Thanks. I would be good to cherry pick the below one too, as it has also a 'Reviewed-by' tag. I mentioned that it might be easier to miss that one because it sits after one without 'Reviewed-by' and it seems to be also applied cleanly: [net-next,v22,08/14] mm: page_frag: use __alloc_pages() to replace alloc_pages_node() https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20241018105351.1960345-9-linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx/ > maintainer, given the mentioned patches touch mostly such code. Sorry for missing to cc Andrew and MM ML. Maybe I should have mentioned that Andrew provided an 'Acked-by' in patch 2, but it is always safer to double check it. > > 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 > >
