Re: Process (was Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes-unstable v18 00/14] khugepaged: add mTHP) collapse support

["Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>]

On 6/2/26 13:20, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 6/1/26 18:16, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 05:45:30PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>> On 6/1/26 17:41, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think life will be easier with submaintainer separate trees for this honestly
>>>> :) or it could become a horrible mess in one tree I think.
>>>
>>> Requiring contributors to submit stuff targeted at some random trees is madness :)
>> 
>> Err what? The 'random' tree is the MAINTAINERS entry you are targeting, it's
>> based on the mm-next stable branch and only diverges in the work that's been
>> done specific to the subtree, what's crazy exactly?
> 
> We'll still have plenty of patch sets that touch files cross trees.
> 
> I don't see the problem of sending stuff against the integration tree from where
> it can just be cleanly picked up by sub-maintainers (after all, that's where all
> the subtrees were integrated against)? Or what exactly is the problem with that?

The problem is that the patches would not be applied on top of the
integration tree, so it doesn't make sense to base them on it in the first
place. Unless they target the next cycle, where the integration tree would
first become part of rc1, which would be the new base for all the
submaintainer trees.