linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <ljs@kernel.org>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>,
	 Audra Mitchell <audra@redhat.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,
	 Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, vbabka@suse.cz, rppt@kernel.org,
	surenb@google.com,  mhocko@suse.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/mm: Fix soft-dirty kselftest supported check
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:14:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f00dce3f-d6dd-477e-bac5-b9b8253b03ba@lucifer.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <815b2fc9-cee7-4bfa-8036-4b93d1b47b4e@lucifer.local>

On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:52:24AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> OK again I'm starting to think we just shouldn't support fix-patches at all any
> more.
>
> This is an example  of a change being done in a fix-patch that's _really_
> causing issues.

I didn't see there was a v2 in-reply-to here sorry.

So in this case less fix patch more:

1. We shouldn't automatically take stuff to mm-unstable until it's settled

2. We should have clear separate branches for stuff-for-7.1 and stuff-for-7.2

3. We should build test stuff (!)

4. We should root cause the source of problems and update the thing that cause.

Part of the problem here is that mm-unstable is a totally unreliable base. Not
as bad as mm-new, but it's forgiveable that Audra didn't see Chris Down's patch
there because who knows when that went in etc.

if we had a for-7.1 git branch that only got stuff that had settled we'd not
have this issue.

And we could have a for-7.2 git branch for stuff that's arrived late.

We could have:

mm-untested (was mm-new)
mm-under-review (was mm-unstable) -> THIS doesn't go to -next
mm-for-7.1 (was mm-stable)        -> THIS goes to -next
mm-for-7.2 (fresh and new!)       -> THIS only goes to -next next cycle

And workflow could be:

-> patch comes in
go straight to mm-untested - we are undiscerning
[ make sure series gets build tested + self tests + etc ]
goes to mm-under-review
WEEKLY:
Stuff that has sub-M signoff and seen no further issues -> for-7.1 (i.e. next release)
if it's <= rc4 and no other reasons to hold off

OR for stuff that doesn't fit the rc4/no other reason criteria
-> for-7.2 if signoff and no issues

If things get reviewed and respun

-> back to mm-untested until tests pass no matter tags
-> (if stable) can jump right to for-7.1/for-7.2 if signed off already. if not then mm-under-review

This way we reduce chance of late yank, give reasonable rebase target of
for-[release you are interested in], documents and simplifies the process.

Thoughts?...

Cheers, Lorenzo


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-03-27 11:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-02-18 18:42 Audra Mitchell
2026-02-24 16:15 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-17 15:08   ` Audra Mitchell
2026-03-18  8:17     ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-19 18:59       ` Audra Mitchell
2026-03-20 11:26         ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-20 18:39           ` [PATCH V2] " Audra Mitchell
2026-03-20 18:39             ` [PATCH] " Audra Mitchell
2026-03-20 20:53               ` Andrew Morton
2026-03-23 11:56               ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-24 23:23                 ` Andrew Morton
2026-03-24 23:24                   ` Andrew Morton
2026-03-25 16:23                     ` Audra Mitchell
2026-03-27 10:08                       ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-27 10:52       ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)
2026-03-27 10:58         ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)
2026-03-27 11:15           ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)
2026-03-27 11:14         ` Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) [this message]
2026-03-31 16:32           ` Audra Mitchell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f00dce3f-d6dd-477e-bac5-b9b8253b03ba@lucifer.local \
    --to=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=audra@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox