On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:57 AM Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 10:36:42AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:53 AM Lorenzo Stoakes > > <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Update the MEMORY MAPPING section to contain VMA logic as it makes no > > > sense to have these two sections separate. > > > > > > Additionally, add files which permit changes to the attributes and/or > > > ranges spanned by memory mappings, in essence anything which might alter > > > the output of /proc/$pid/[s]maps. > > > > > > This is necessarily fuzzy, as there is not quite as good separation of > > > concerns as we would ideally like in the kernel. However each of these > > > files interacts with the VMA and memory mapping logic in such a way as to > > > be inseparatable from it, and it is important that they are maintained in > > > conjunction with it. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 23 ++++++++--------------- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > index 68d825a4c69c..fb91389addd7 100644 > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > @@ -15071,7 +15071,15 @@ L: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx > > > S: Maintained > > > W: http://www.linux-mm.org > > > T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm > > > +F: mm/mlock.c > > > F: mm/mmap.c > > > +F: mm/mprotect.c > > > +F: mm/mremap.c > > > +F: mm/mseal.c > > > +F: mm/vma.c > > > +F: mm/vma.h > > > +F: mm/vma_internal.h > > > +F: tools/testing/vma/ > > > > > Will madvise be here too ? > > No. We had a long discussion about this on another version of this patch :) > it's blurry lines but it, in the end, is too much related to things other > than VMA logic. > > We probably need better separation of stuff, but that's another thing... > > > I'd like to be added as a reviewer on mm/mseal.c. Is there any way to > > indicate this from this file ? > > This is something we can consider in the future, sure. What'd be the downsides of having an additional reviewer? Especially the one who wrote the code... > However at this time you have had really significant issues in engaging > with the community on a regular basis I'm not aware that this can disqualify anyone from being a reviewer of a specific file. > so I think the community is unlikely > to be open to this until you have improved in this area. I do not know Jeff personally, but I think the community should make anyone who wants to contribute feel welcome. > You will, of course, remain cc'd on any mseal changes regardless, so > functionally nothing will differ. > > And equally, this change doesn't alter my or Liam's role, we will apply the > same review regardless. > > The purpose of this change is, as the message says, to ensure the integrity > and maintainership of logic relating to memory mapping, and mseal is really > entirely a VMA operation so has to be included as a result. > > So it is administrative in nature, ultimately. Sorry -- I couldn't make out what you are trying to say here. So I'd like to ask bluntly: is there any previous disagreement between you and Jeff to make you reject his request? If so, I think we'd need a 3rd party (probably Andrew) to review his request. If not, I'd urge you to use his help.
