Re: [PATCH 1/3] compiler.h: add ASSERT_STATIC_STORAGE()

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

On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 18:31:03 -0400 Yury Norov <ynorov@nvidia.com> wrote:

> > 
> > Thanks, I'll queue it.
> > 
> > Sashiko wants the same treatment for a few other macros:
> > 	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260911221444.1523311-1-ynorov@nvidia.com
> 
> Below is the list of candidates that my AI finds relevant:
> 
> [long list]
> 
> I planned to submit this hardening for them per the relevant subsystems
> after at least landing the ASSERT_STATIC_STORAGE() in -next.
> 
> If you're OK to move that material through your tree all in one,
> I can prepare it as a single series.

People often do this by sending patches into various maintainers.  It
can be pretty exhausting and unreliable - maintainer attentiveness
levels vary a lot.


Such a series is applying one concept in many places.  It's justifiable
to do this in a single series.


It gets me shouted at, but my preferred approach is to take all of it
into mm.git while ensuring that maintainers are cc'ed.  Results are
among:

i)   maintainer says ack.  Great, I keep the patch and upstream it

ii)  maintainer merges it.  Great, I drop the mm.git copy when the
     conflict is reported in linux-next.

iii) maintainer says nothing.  Oh well, I upstream it and hope for the
     best.

     iiiA): maintainer later shouts at me.  Oh well, I did
            my best, read your darn email.

So yes, send everything to everyone and I'll do this.