Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/nommu: remove unnecessary VMA locking

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 1:05 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Just a general comment: usually, if review of the original series is
> >> still going on, it makes a lot more sense to raise such things in the
> >> original series so the author can fixup while things are still in
> >> mm-unstable. Once the series is in mm-stable, it's a different story. In
> >> that case, it is usually good to have the mail subjects be something
> >> like  "[PATCH mm-stable 1/1] ...".
> >
> > Ok... For my education, do you mean the title of this patch should
> > somehow reflect that it should be folded into the original patch? Just
> > trying to understand the actionable item here. How would you change
> > this patch when posting for mm-unstable and for mm-stable?
>
> For patches that fixup something in mm-stable (stable commit ID but not
> yet master -> we cannot squash anymore so we need separate commits),
> it's good to include "mm-stable". The main difference to patches that
> target master is that by indicating "mm-stable", everyone knows that
> this is not broken in some upstream/production kernel.
>
>
> For patches that fixup something that is in mm-unstable (no stable
> commit ID -> still under review and fixup easily possible), IMHO we
> distinguish between two cases:
>
> (1) You fixup your own patches: simply send the fixup as reply to the
> original patch. Andrew will pick it up and squash it before including it
> in mm-stable. Sometimes a complete resend of a series makes sense instead.
>
> (2) You fixup patches from someone else: simply raise it as a review
> comment in reply to the original patch. It might make sense to send a
> patch, but usually you just raise the issue to the patch author as a
> review comment and the author will address that. Again, Andrew will pick
> it up and squash it before moving it to mm-stable.
>
>
> That way, it's clearer when stumbling over patches on the mailing list
> if they fix a real issue in upstream, fix a issue in
> soon-to-be-upstream, or are simply part of a WIP series that is still
> under review.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, David. I'll post fixups to
mm-unstable patches by replying to the original ones from now on.
Interestingly enough, I have another fix today (internal syzcaller
found a potential deadlock) which might be interesting enough to be in
a separate patch. So, I'll post it as a separate patch and we can
discuss whether it should be squashed or kept apart.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>