Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] KVM: guest_memfd: support for uffd minor

["Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>]

* Nikita Kalyazin <kalyazin@amazon.com> [250407 10:05]:
> 

...

> > 
> > All of this is extremely confusing because the onus of figuring out what
> > the final code will look like is put on the reviewer.  As it is, we have
> > issues with people not doing enough review of the code (due to limited
> > time).  One way to get reviews is to make the barrier of entry as low as
> > possible.
> > 
> > I spent Friday going down a rabbit hole of patches referring to each
> > other as dependencies and I gave up.  It looks like I mistook one set of
> > patches as required vs them requiring the same in-flight ones as your
> > patches.
> > 
> > I am struggling to see how we can adequately support all of you given
> > the way the patches are sent out in batches with dependencies - it is
> > just too time consuming to sort out.
> 
> I'm happy to do whatever I can to make the review easier.  I suppose the
> extreme case is to wait for the dependencies to get accepted, effectively
> serialising submissions, but that slows the process down significantly.  For
> example, I received very good feedback on v1 and v2 of this series and was
> able to address it instead of waiting for the dependency.  Would including
> the required patches directly in the series help?  My only concern is in
> that case the same patch will be submitted multiple times (as a part of
> every depending series), but if it's better, I'll be doing that instead.

Don't resend patches that someone else is upstreaming, that'll cause
other problems.

Three methods come to mind:

1. As you stated, wait for the dependencies to land.  This is will mean
what you are working against is well tested and won't change (and you
won't have to re-spin due to an unstable base).

2. Combine them into a bigger patch set.  I can then pull one patch set
and look at the parts of interest to the mm side.

3. Provide a git repo with the necessary changes together.

I think 2 and 3 together should be used for the guest_memfd patches.
Someone needs to be managing these to send upstream.  See the discussion
in another patch set on guest_memfd here [1].

As this is not based on fully upstream patches, this should be marked as
RFC, imo.

Thanks,
Liam

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/aizia2elwspxcmfrjote5h7k5wdw2stp42slytkl5visrjvzwi@jj3lwuudiyjk/