Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] hugetlbfs: add fallocate support

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:09:34 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:

> Changes in this revision address the minor comment and function name
> issues brought up by Naoya Horiguchi.  Patch set is also rebased on
> current "mmotm/since-4.1".  This revision does not introduce any
> functional changes.
> 
> As suggested during the RFC process, tests have been proposed to
> libhugetlbfs as described at:
> http://librelist.com/browser//libhugetlbfs/2015/6/25/patch-tests-add-tests-for-fallocate-system-call/
> fallocate(2) man page modifications are also necessary to specify
> that fallocate for hugetlbfs only operates on whole pages.  This
> change will be submitted once the code has stabilized and been
> proposed for merging.
> 
> hugetlbfs is used today by applications that want a high degree of
> control over huge page usage.  Often, large hugetlbfs files are used
> to map a large number huge pages into the application processes.
> The applications know when page ranges within these large files will
> no longer be used, and ideally would like to release them back to
> the subpool or global pools for other uses.  The fallocate() system
> call provides an interface for preallocation and hole punching within
> files.  This patch set adds fallocate functionality to hugetlbfs.
> 
> v4:
>   Renamed vma_abort_reservation() to vma_end_reservation().
>
> ...
>
> v3 patch series:
> Reviewed-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>

eek.  Please don't hide the reviews and acks in [0/n] like this.  I
don't expect to see them there, which causes me to park the patch
series until I'm feeling awake enough to undertake the patchset's first
ever review.