On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 3:29 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 10:56:50 -0800 Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > While I plan to keep reviewing the series, I think it would make sense > > > to split this patchset into two smaller ones. > > > The way I see it, we are trying to deal with two different problems and their > > > solutions. > > > > > > 1) pre-hvo at boot time > > > 2) multi-range support of CMA (only used for hugetlb) > > > > > > I did not go through the entire patchset yet, so I ignore whether the > > > respective patches to tackle these two problems are really dependent on > > > each other, but I think that would be very interesting to consider a > > > patchset per solution if that is not the case. > > > > > > IMHO, it would ease review quite a lot. > > > > Hi Oskar, > > > > Thanks a lot for reviewing this series. > > > > I certainly could split it up, but here are the dependencies (it's > > actually 3 parts): > > > > 1. Multi-range CMA (used by hugetlb) (patches 1-4) > > 2. Pre-HVO for hugetlb bootmem pages (patches 5-22) > > 3. Enable hugepages= (and pre-HVO) for CMA (patches 23-28) > > > > 1 and 2 are independent. 3 depends on 1 and 2. > > > > So, I could post 1) and 2) simultaneously, and 3) would have to wait > > until 1) and 2) are resolved. > > > > Andrew, do you have any thoughts on splitting it up? > > I don't see much trouble with the above dependencies - we can consider > the three series to be an all-or-nothing thing. > > Such a splitup would be the same patches, packaged slightly > differently. The main difference would be the presence of two more > [0/n] cover letters, presumably also repackaging existing material. I > don't see a lot of benefit personally. > Thanks Andrew. Here's what I can do: keep the series as a whole, but note at the top of the cover letter that parts can be reviewed / applied independently. I hope that works out for everyone. - Frank
