Hi, Andrew
On 10/24/2024 5:05 PM, 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
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?
Are the above patches cherry-picked to net-next tree ok with you?
More specifically, they are patch 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 with at least
one 'Acked-by' or 'Reviewed-by' tag.
Or any better suggestion about the plan?
