Remap_file_pages protection support: when to send patches?

Remap_file_pages protection support: when to send patches?

[Blaisorblade]

Hi Andrew, I've been resurrecting lately remap_file_pages protection support 
for UML.

I've updated it to 2.6.20 and it passes its unit test, and the 
resulting kernel has no stability problems in my experience on my Dual Core 
laptop (I've been using it for long time).

Since last time I sent it, I've fixed remaining problems and TODOs, and 
cleaned up the split (I'm just improving the way patches are split). Now it 
is a patchset with 13 patches, and the diffstat is attached.

Now I'm curious about when I should or could better send those patches - i.e. 
when they bring less noise into the -mm tree?

This would allow me to snapshot the git and/or -mm tree, test the patches 
against that kernel with my unit testing program, and only then send these 
patches to get them at least included into -mm.

Any suggestion? Obviously if you want to see the code first, in the standard 
way, I'll follow usual practice  - just tell it me (and I'll send it shortly 
anyway, if I get no answer).

Good bye

$ q diff --combine -|diffstat -p1
 arch/i386/mm/fault.c              |   10 +++
 arch/um/kernel/trap.c             |   10 ++-
 arch/x86_64/mm/fault.c            |   13 +++
 include/asm-alpha/mman.h          |    3
 include/asm-arm/mman.h            |    3
 include/asm-arm26/mman.h          |    3
 include/asm-cris/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-frv/mman.h            |    3
 include/asm-generic/pgtable.h     |   13 +++
 include/asm-h8300/mman.h          |    3
 include/asm-i386/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-i386/pgtable-2level.h |   11 +--
 include/asm-i386/pgtable-3level.h |    7 +-
 include/asm-i386/pgtable.h        |   24 +++++++
 include/asm-ia64/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-m32r/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-m68k/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-mips/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-parisc/mman.h         |    3
 include/asm-powerpc/mman.h        |    3
 include/asm-s390/mman.h           |    3
 include/asm-sh/mman.h             |    3
 include/asm-sparc/mman.h          |    3
 include/asm-sparc64/mman.h        |    3
 include/asm-um/pgtable-2level.h   |   16 +++-
 include/asm-um/pgtable-3level.h   |   21 ++++--
 include/asm-um/pgtable.h          |   21 ++++++
 include/asm-x86_64/mman.h         |    3
 include/asm-x86_64/pgtable.h      |   29 ++++++++
 include/asm-xtensa/mman.h         |    3
 include/linux/bitops.h            |   10 +++
 include/linux/mm.h                |   43 +++++++++++--
 include/linux/mman.h              |   25 ++-----
 include/linux/pagemap.h           |   22 ++++++
 mm/filemap.c                      |    2
 mm/fremap.c                       |  100 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
 mm/memory.c                       |  124 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 mm/mprotect.c                     |    7 ++
 mm/rmap.c                         |    3
 mm/shmem.c                        |    2
 40 files changed, 472 insertions(+), 98 deletions(-)

-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: Remap_file_pages protection support: when to send patches?

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 22:45:26 +0100
Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> wrote:

> Hi Andrew, I've been resurrecting lately remap_file_pages protection support 
> for UML.
> 
> I've updated it to 2.6.20 and it passes its unit test, and the 
> resulting kernel has no stability problems in my experience on my Dual Core 
> laptop (I've been using it for long time).
> 
> Since last time I sent it, I've fixed remaining problems and TODOs, and 
> cleaned up the split (I'm just improving the way patches are split). Now it 
> is a patchset with 13 patches, and the diffstat is attached.
> 
> Now I'm curious about when I should or could better send those patches - i.e. 
> when they bring less noise into the -mm tree?
> 
> This would allow me to snapshot the git and/or -mm tree, test the patches 
> against that kernel with my unit testing program, and only then send these 
> patches to get them at least included into -mm.
> 
> Any suggestion? Obviously if you want to see the code first, in the standard 
> way, I'll follow usual practice  - just tell it me (and I'll send it shortly 
> anyway, if I get no answer).

Just send them out, against next -mm please.  Be sure to cc linux-mm.

I'm going to have to ask other developers for more help reviewing and testing
things like this in the future.  Things just aren't working.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>