From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-171.mta0.migadu.com (out-171.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.171]) (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 90E1F47A88C for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 11:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785325855; cv=none; b=iDWe7jogSNvQBn4iLWhvL1e9cSLgYjQDdpUE5eDFRBkaNlhFr70sPjTxDQWvCahtEFSqxnfPkGYfUICN8ZnpqXUB3CEYD/NpaNRKUsUviYAJDRudARHwRDMndHKiudZx9p6cc57748/kwS9dXRE/9PJUxPA0JEcG7HZ8piAaWiY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785325855; c=relaxed/simple; bh=k5Z2HfoamLNSQvohUbrABdGCh5ajWnauXreNAn0e4ig=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=Ss9MX8gonNsMcvJAyzThweYpY7eTuHMh6LmuY1P7bwVvVzS5ipYe8e96d8p6pG1ADzjG692wKvyeOHKHLz1jc0/4auxArzCT/W2GK1LKBBT/Txj978MaqN66sdmMgJ3UdnwAx7jyArUmUbpwHX8uLZ9h0avd3P/FgoSt1ymrXy4= 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=r2lsqEoY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.171 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="r2lsqEoY" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1785325840; 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=RW4sNREqQBsxBWcBVOxGkaAhxGnf2SK3CsBZlJEr+CI=; b=r2lsqEoYAQ1KGpOstBBL26uqJoRA/RKskIVz/NmP2P1yJGaJGxiK351ItTrzmwafZrTrgF N3Vc5HNWYU1L2pUZk/uW+BQB/+yzxmdArbOwj40bXQCJd+LfcHhw5WJrU4lzVIGwsJfnLj EmJU9F1CtAj8Nu+CAAOxOxo9skdsMYc= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 11:50:32 +0000 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: move internal mempolicy APIs to new internal header X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: "Brendan Jackman" To: "Brendan Jackman" , "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" , "Matthew Wilcox" Cc: "Brendan Jackman" , "Andrew Morton" , "David Hildenbrand" , "Lorenzo Stoakes" , "Liam R. Howlett" , "Mike Rapoport" , "Suren Baghdasaryan" , "Michal Hocko" , "Johannes Weiner" , "Zi Yan" , "Jan Kara" , "Joshua Hahn" , "Byungchul Park" , "Gregory Price" , "Ying Huang" , "Alistair Popple" , "Hugh Dickins" , "Baolin Wang" , "Chris Li" , "Kairui Song" , "Kemeng Shi" , "Nhat Pham" , "Baoquan He" , "Barry Song" , "Youngjun Park" , "Joerg Roedel (AMD)" , "Will Deacon" , "Robin Murphy" , "Huacai Chen" , "WANG Xuerui" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Chuck Lever" , "Jeff Layton" , "NeilBrown" , "Olga Kornievskaia" , "Dai Ngo" , "Tom Talpey" , "Trond Myklebust" , "Anna Schumaker" , "David S. Miller" , "Eric Dumazet" , "Jakub Kicinski" , "Paolo Abeni" , "Simon Horman" , , , , , , , References: <20260716-folio-alloc-cleanups-v1-0-5363b8e92d33@google.com> <20260716-folio-alloc-cleanups-v1-1-5363b8e92d33@google.com> <51810eba-2a60-49f9-b879-7f806546e600@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Wed Jul 22, 2026 at 3:15 PM UTC, Brendan Jackman wrote: ... >>> We have a long history of people just moving stuff around in patches >>> without knowing what the intent was if it should be moved. >> >> I guess this patch is not critical to the rest, if that's an issue. > > Well, for ALLOC_UNMAPPED we really do need an alloc_flags arg for this > function, but we can always just go straight to what I described above. > I.e. I can create the __ variant + wrapper from the start. It's just a > question of whether we prefer: > > - "Yuck, there's a public wrapper here that we don't actually need", or > > - "We hid this mempolicy API and people might think we'd NACK a patch to > un-hide it".0 > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260703-alloc-trylock-v5-2-c87b714e19d3@go= ogle.com/ Uh yeah so in v3 I did not depend on this patch, I just went straight to creating __folio_alloc_mpol_noprof() here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260726-page_alloc-unmapped-v3-25-6f5729aa9832= @google.com/ So yeah I'd say we can just drop this controversial patch and move forwards with the other two?