On 04.04.25 20:05, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
* Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx> [250328 11:32]:
This series adds restricted mmap() support to guest_memfd, as well as
support for guest_memfd on arm64. Please see v3 for the context [1].
As I'm sure you are aware, we have issues getting people to review
patches. The lower the barrier to entry, the better for everyone.
Sorry if I go too much into detail about the process, I am not sure
where you are starting from. The linux-mm maintainer (Andrew, aka
akpm), usually takes this cover letter and puts it on patch 1 so that
the git history captures all the details necessary for the entire patch
set to make sense. What you have done here is made a lot of work for
the maintainer. I'm not sure what information below is or is not
captured in the v3 context.
But then again, maybe are are not going through linux-mm for upstream?
[replying to some bits]
As all patches and this subject is "KVM:" I would assume this goes
through the kvm tree once ready.
[...]
So this means I need 6.14-rc7 + patches from march 18th to review your
series?
Oh my, and I just responded to another patch set built off this patch
set? So we have 3 in-flight patches that I need for the last patch set?
What is going on with guest_memfd that everything needs to be in-flight
at once?
Yeah, we're still all trying to connect the pieces to make it all fly
together. Looks like we're getting there.
I was actually thinking that maybe it would be better to split *this*
set into 2 logical parts: 1. mmap() support and 2. guest_memfd arm64
support. But now I have so many lore emails opened in my browser trying
to figure this out that I don't want any more.
There's also "mm: Consolidate freeing of typed folios on final
folio_put()" and I don't know where it fits.
That will likely be moved into a different patch set after some
discussions we had yesterday.
Is this because the upstream path differs? It's very difficult to
follow what's going on.
The state diagram that uses the new states in this patch series,
and how they would interact with sharing/unsharing in pKVM [4].
This cover letter is very difficult to follow. Where do the main
changes since v6 end? I was going to suggest bullets, but v3 has
bullets and is more clear already. I'd much prefer if it remained line
v3, any reason you changed?
I am not sure what upstream repository you are working with, but
if you are sending this for the mm stream, please base your work on
mm-new and AT LEAST wait until the patches are in mm-new, but ideally
wait for mm-unstable and mm-stable for wider test coverage. This might
vary based on your upstream path though.
I did respond to one of the other patch set that's based off this one
that the lockdep issue in patch 3 makes testing a concern. Considering
there are patches on patches, I don't think you are going to get a whole
lot of people reviewing or testing it until it falls over once it hits
linux-next.
I think for now it's mostly KVM + guest_memfd people reviewing this.
linux-mm is only CCed for awareness (clearly MM related stuff).
The number of patches in-flight, the ordering, and the base is so
confusing. Are you sure none of these should be RFC? The flood of
changes pretty much guarantees things will be missed, more work will be
created, and people (like me) will get frustrated.
Yeah, I think everything basing the work on this series should be RFC or
clearly tagged as based on this work differently.
It looks like a small team across companies are collaborating on this,
and that's awesome. I think you need to change how you are doing things
and let the rest of us in on the code earlier.
I think the approach taken to share the different pieces early makes
sense, it just has to be clearer what the dependencies are and what is
actually the first thing that should go in so people can focus review on
that.
Otherwise you will be
forced to rebase on changed patch series every time something is
accepted upstream.
I don't think that's a problem, the work built on top of this are mostly
shared for early review/feedback -- whereby I agree that tagging them
differently makes a lot of sense.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
