On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 09:23:15AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > The patch titled > Subject: arm64/mm: set_pte(): new layer to manage contig bit > has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is > arm64-mm-set_pte-new-layer-to-manage-contig-bit.patch > > This patch will shortly appear at > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/arm64-mm-set_pte-new-layer-to-manage-contig-bit.patch > > This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm > > Before you just go and hit "reply", please: > a) Consider who else should be cc'ed > b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well > c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a > reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's > > *** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code *** > > The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything > branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm > and is updated there every 2-3 working days > > ------------------------------------------------------ > From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> > Subject: arm64/mm: set_pte(): new layer to manage contig bit > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:50:48 +0000 > > Create a new layer for the in-table PTE manipulation APIs. For now, The > existing API is prefixed with double underscore to become the arch-private > API and the public API is just a simple wrapper that calls the private > API. > > The public API implementation will subsequently be used to transparently > manipulate the contiguous bit where appropriate. But since there are > already some contig-aware users (e.g. hugetlb, kernel mapper), we must > first ensure those users use the private API directly so that the future > contig-bit manipulations in the public API do not interfere with those > existing uses. Hmm, I certainly didn't have this series earmarked as v4.8 material. I gave it a quick once-over last week but, with the looming holidays, I was planning to come back to it properly in the New Year. I also thought ther was a fork() regression that was under investigation? Ryan -- what is your expectation here? In any case, this series makes significant changes to the low-level arm64 mm code and I don't think many of us will be around in the next couple of weeks to deal with the fallout if it kicks up any issues. Andrew -- if Ryan doesn't object, please can you drop this for now? Cheers, Will
