Re: [PATCH net-next v22 00/14] Replace page_frag with page_frag_cache for sk_page_frag()

[Yunsheng Lin <yunshenglin0825@gmail.com>]

Hi, Andrew

On 10/24/2024 5:05 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just noted MM maintainer and ML was not CC on the cover-letter (but
> they were on the relevant patches), adding them now.
> 
> On 10/19/24 10:27, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>> On 10/19/2024 1:39 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> So I still think this set should be split in half in order to make
>>> this easier to review. The ones I have provided a review-by for so far
>>> seem fine to me. I really think if you just submitted that batch first
>>> we can get that landed and let them stew in the kernel for a bit to
>>> make sure we didn't miss anything there.
>>
>> It makes sense to me too that it might be better to get those submitted
>> to get more testing if there is no more comment about it.
>>
>> I am guessing they should be targetting net-next tree to get more
>> testing as all the callers of page_frag API seem to be in the
>> networking, right?
>>
>> Hi, David, Jakub & Paolo
>> It would be good if those patches are just cherry-picked from this
>> patchset as those patches with 'Reviewed-by' tag seem to be applying
>> cleanly. Or any better suggestion here?
> 
> We can cherry pick the patches from the posted series, applying the
> review tags as needed, but we need an explicit ack from the mm
> maintainer, given the mentioned patches touch mostly such code.
> 
> I would like to avoid repeating a recent incident of unintentionally
> stepping on other subsystem toes.
> 
> @Andrew: are you ok with the above plan?

Are the above patches cherry-picked to net-next tree ok with you?
More specifically, they are patch 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 with at least
one 'Acked-by' or 'Reviewed-by' tag.

Or any better suggestion about the plan?