From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01541B0F2C for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729760741; cv=none; b=u+0cNkbdsSCjwpXoN58h73Her7COMX5Gmby3wXLCiqCjQXuerTjk5HIIvPf0k80hcP1R5U1QWclXTpKJr3OPF9C0+Vl4YVYiiOFmylgWBqYF95ORRXFG/+Ig6IJHiEHpOvn84ZxXtg809j/eIbfQ6G8poa0du21xi9ljVp66m5M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1729760741; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Z32bqkdyvIrXas41lz6iz5PGpFo2gmvCedA9F9R4I0Y=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jHdVqQzQStgB0ycdsp5y2rUAE9EAvgQnRqkcQehlAgqq8eWFto+b/4rYai9l9TN30DWY/5ne+5SWV5Hl+2ZCETx4Mm47sN198HRDEHUkb7KkR6dTf5nZxaF0yjl0uneaLKsas/MK+RzE21on6RMKO33in3uOai0G3izcBLJO+ik= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=QsxteRP0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="QsxteRP0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1729760738; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=u70sIwyFm0suH4CDe5A/iIejFVl9J+uk9rhnPzF4Ntc=; b=QsxteRP0s+qOeqTQGgnm0UKS9mgIUVyKTfZq3YrlNZmkx6cjH6mUM99BfeQh48bI/Ofj82 vaL9IRX0Cr9BUnFnH3s9Bcm+AULWDMzDv+HAjbbTmyR4ojtgbg4McBWiC4xOhAkKx3Ul3p kgUnYh4pAERnLUTEwqCGcoCFy7hAdvs= Received: from mail-lf1-f69.google.com (mail-lf1-f69.google.com [209.85.167.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-688-AvbPqrulPmmo4b1OlbWfwg-1; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 05:05:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: AvbPqrulPmmo4b1OlbWfwg-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-539eeb63cc3so413194e87.2 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1729760736; x=1730365536; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u70sIwyFm0suH4CDe5A/iIejFVl9J+uk9rhnPzF4Ntc=; b=ZegZ0VCTK9PqUYvTWQGO3b/RlAGgKM7Hl/vAWz5vDjBA1hUU6xwKgVlqFcMgLLK+oW s1pacFOGTXgSqfG9TFnC4OS+3T3qJYbt+KXPwvmLEd5XvExDc7/+rt85SDIHe4UEXcmL /ydDhTXoSKLuy3oayJXUJwBQYHilkd4+QKAgBEOmX/7ypSSqCN3AID7OAR38bmjlY61s h8I/teqXZprhvbhvONuhihsd9yH+xlorUCjDJ8FraaXrwN9OHpxJDNfxkNHqMtibGFys BX792IC7R9qKLXW/68H8aH+AZkL+YNgwOXY1IhQSn6pgj9guD1dESfskO1XBtDBzvHJL ZAJA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV73LrQELtQzyz8Oy5Y8KX3ZgJpgw1Bpd8xU0aJWEEPRKRNfNRqx3/QH2w4YqJAVg4LFAGaeroWNqlIxvc=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxTfOLdRcu3WnNq6cBVSsHj+2dJSEP/XOajjFBkmKmh1MpbHvPw oZTzq74CIpdAeHRIYal7QEa1P73lTy5vl1sLgY3MgrNyDf0Bij5wlwkxBRkkL+lYsD27PGP25xe kgzCRUq7IVNfdfsPrFQLEk7NnfAZ3Dxn9RGgAXfW2IQrZOpqWyfWvubKqvz4dTQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2392:b0:539:f8cb:f5e3 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53b1a375b33mr2937455e87.48.1729760735840; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IExoOpe615O7V0Vd9OGAHQxabxJ1jZDno5UnaeKOorq+8MwKq3jNe31QuxTpcKXM4fOXZjb5g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2392:b0:539:f8cb:f5e3 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-53b1a375b33mr2937433e87.48.1729760735411; Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2a0d:3344:1b73:a910::f71? ([2a0d:3344:1b73:a910::f71]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-37ee0a4b26dsm10814443f8f.45.2024.10.24.02.05.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:05:33 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v22 00/14] Replace page_frag with page_frag_cache for sk_page_frag() To: Yunsheng Lin , Andrew Morton Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Eric Dumazet , Alexander Duyck , davem@davemloft.net, Yunsheng Lin , kuba@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20241018105351.1960345-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <02d4971c-a906-44e8-b694-bd54a89cf671@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Paolo Abeni In-Reply-To: <02d4971c-a906-44e8-b694-bd54a89cf671@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? Thank you, Paolo