Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] mm/huge_memory: refactor zap_huge_pmd()

Pedro Falcato
2026-03-23T12:34:40Z

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:31:29AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 05:15:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 20:33:11 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > A lot of patchsets are "failed to apply". What is Sashiko trying to
> > > apply MM patches to? It would take some smarts to apply the v2
> > > patchset when v1 is presently in mm.git?
> >
> > ?
> >
> > The way things are going at present, I'm just not going to apply a
>
> 50% noise vs. signal?... maybe wait until we're in the 9x'%s?
>
> > series which Sashiko "failed to apply". And that's cool, I'll just
> > wait for a version which Sashiko was able to apply. And then not
> > apply unless all Sashiko questions are resolved or convincingly refuted.
>
> Andrew, for crying out loud. Please don't do this.
>
> 2 of the 3 series I respan on Friday, working a 13 hour day to do so, don't
> apply to Sashiko, but do apply to the mm tree.
>
> I haven't the _faintest clue_ how we are supposed to factor a 3rd party
> experimental website applying or not applying series into our work??
>
> And 'not apply unless all Sashiko questions are resolved or convincingly
> refuted.' is seriously concerning.

FWIW I wholeheartedly agree. I don't understand how we don't require proper
M: or R: reviews on patches before merging, but now out of the blue require
the magic AI LLM thingy to review it before it's merged.

Like, sure, sashiko can be useful, and is better than nothing. But unless
sashiko is better than the maintainers, it should be kept as optional.

Seriously, I can't wrap my head around the difference in treatment in
"human maintainers, experts in the code, aren't required to review a patch"
vs "make the fscking AI happy or it's not going anywhere". It's almost
insulting.

--
Pedro