On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:47:15 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:13:40AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > Ccing relevant folks. > > Thanks Shakeel! Thank you Shakeel, too! > > A side-note, I really wish there was a better way to get cc'd, since I > fundamentally changed process_madvise() recently and was the main person > changing this code lately, but on the other hand - > scripts/get_maintainers.pl gets really really noisy if you try to use this > kind of stat - so I in no way blame SJ for missing me. Yes, I always feeling finding not too many, not too less, but only appropriate recipients for patches is not easy. Just FYI, I use get_maintainers.pl with --nogit option[1] and add more recipients based on additional logics[2] that based on my past experiences and discussions, by default. And then I run get_maintainers.pl without --nogit option if I get no response more than I expected. I will keep Shakeel-aded recipients for next spins of this patch, anyway. > > Thankfully Shakeel kindly stepped in to make me aware :) > > SJ - I will come back to you later, as it's late here and my brain is fried > - but I was already thinking of doing something _like_ this, as I noticed > for the purposes of self-process_madvise() operations (which I unrestricted > for guard page purposes) - we are hammering locks in a way that we know we > don't necessarily need to do. > > So this is serendipitous for me! :) But I need to dig into your actual > implementation to give feedback here. > > Will come back to this in due course :) No worry, no rush. Please take your time :) [1] https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail/blob/master/src/hkml_patch_format.py#L45 [2] https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail/blob/master/src/hkml_patch_format.py#L31 Thanks, SJ [...]
