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

Andrew Morton
2026-03-23T21:36:09Z

On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:34:31 +0000 Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de> wrote:

> 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

I wish people would stop making this claim, without substantiation.
I've looked (deeply) at the data, which is equally available to us all.
Has anyone else?

After weeding out a few special cases (especially DAMON) (this time
also maple_tree), the amount of such unreviewed material which enters
mm-stable and mainline is very very low.

> 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.

Rule #1 is, surely, "don't add bugs". This thing finds bugs. If its
hit rate is 50% then that's plenty high enough to justify people
spending time to go through and check its output.

> 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"

Speaking of insulting.

> vs "make the fscking AI happy or it's not going anywhere". It's almost
> insulting.

Look, I know people are busy. If checking these reports slows us down
and we end up merging less code and less buggy code then that's a good
tradeoff.

Also, gimme a break. Like everyone else I'm still trying to wrap my
head how best to incorporate this new tool into our development
processes.