From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-67.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661A33909B5 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 23:14:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.67 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789514066; cv=none; b=K8dJLGGU5UqIwxa4n1ZtaOd4ikKe3ap8aGxyyB8fr31RHbavD3x+ImkYmR827z1IJvdto5XU9i9DkEzOQSgtEYPomhCTwyOKgEzQiOA6adI51aBzVr6u6OTarMnCNDtWGVMeRUasu4gMgQmFw6Zjn0c2h2WpUBVGc3fM6BwTrsE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789514066; c=relaxed/simple; bh=08eMJ8pVfxX7lwFei640u01CcIs9ZXeNnsZ9/99uOK8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=I9DIYl8LJvJr1P+xkdQs+/O5w9IlaWhtDMBSVJksWmFSsE/fC4IUXefekR2XSRnUj/w4cERNgHQ3mMf0mCX/3fFRN3k1KmGE0dTyJD3zQqV2PnhuVGWHIu+rTDbliFGlacxYDUTO2vzKQS+ueXULlBTLwf58UY8YP16vn4+sXVQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=csnwv3Dz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.67 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="csnwv3Dz" X-Envelope-To: sashiko@lists.linux.dev DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=08eMJ8pVfxX7lwFei640u01CcIs9ZXeNnsZ9/99uOK8=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1789514060; v=1; x=1790118860; b=csnwv3DzJDrFH7sgmwyza3yWpX9Yedm0v00WHtjwwP4vyHMNk5/quFNetUMAGoGektvJ+Tqm bArWNw4d8lCxkLfB2k1MHEZ6E+VzhkQK0MRtV7aDFUG1owYIzZWdURcm8DfnrrncAmYfR1nsZey zhrP49UKwFkwqxdO0Ukl6Kww= X-Envelope-To: sashiko@lists.linux.dev Received: by mta10.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 0f5dada24b606ce1; Tue, 15 Sep 2026 23:14:10 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 0f5dada24b606ce1 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT From: Roman Gushchin To: Andrew Morton Cc: sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Zi Yan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Remove PG_private by using page/folio->private checks instead In-Reply-To: <20260915144958.23000e3a625ecc24f48ee568@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:49:58 -0700") References: <20260913-remove-pg_private-v4-0-848550f7574e@nvidia.com> <20260915144958.23000e3a625ecc24f48ee568@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.15; emacs 30.2 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 23:14:03 +0000 Message-ID: <7ia4mrti6rb8.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: sashiko@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Andrew Morton writes: > Hey all, > > On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 22:23:58 -0400 Zi Yan wrote: > >> Subject: [PATCH v4 00/16] Remove PG_private by using page/folio->private checks instead >> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 22:23:58 -0400 >> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org >> X-Mailer: b4 0.16.0 >> >> Hi all, >> >> This patchset removes PG_private to make space for upcoming PG_folio for >> identifying pages from a folio (more details in Note below). Instead of >> checking PG_private, all code is changed to check page/folio->private != >> NULL instead. > > Sashiko seems to have done something wrong with this review. > > The original thread is at > https://lore.kernel.org/20260913-remove-pg_private-v4-0-848550f7574e@nvidia.com > > its title is > > [PATCH v4 00/16] Remove PG_private by using page/folio->private checks instead > > its msgid is > > 20260913-remove-pg_private-v4-0-848550f7574e@nvidia.com > > > > The relevant Sashiko URL is > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260913-remove-pg_private-v4-0-848550f7574e@nvidia.com > > > That URL shows the email conversation correctly. But the page's title > and the associated code review refer to a different patchset entirely, > "[PATCH 1/3] md: Use folio_alloc_buffers()". > > > I used the search box for "Remove PG_private by using > page/folio->private checks instead" and got the same result. > > > a) something odd happened! Yep, I'm looking into fixing it. > > b) is there any way of finding the review for "[PATCH v4 00/16] > Remove PG_private by using page/folio->private checks instead"? https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/73521 Thanks