Re: [PATCH] mm/madvise: reclaim isolated folios if PTE restart fails

["Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 10:02:45AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 02:18:36PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > >
> > > relevant meme: https://i.imgur.com/W0N40BK.png
> >
> > Content not viewable in my region :'( seems I do not have a loicense for
> > that!
> >
>
> google "reading other people's code meme" and find the comic with
>
> // this is bridge
>
> :]
>
> > >
> > > No argument here. This function in particular is really horrendous.
> > >
> > > I think i'm now 4 or 5 stacks deep on the "Thanks for fixing a bug, but
> > > while reviewing your fix sashiko found yet another CVE-worthy bug".
> >
> > Yeah, I WISH it wouldn't do that.
> >
> > I mean it's helpful to some degree and it finds real stuff.
> >
> > But it's _where_ it does that and the workload++ aspect of it.
> >
>
> In some senses - yes it's annoying.
>
> In other senses, it's saved me a lot of pain debugging my new work, and
> I'm willing to do some cleanup on the way to new functionality.
>
> Someone's gotta be the janitor I guess.
>
> > > I suppose reasonable to say the goto is worse.
> >
> > Yeah I know it's all a bit much of a muchness, and obviously my suggestion
> > _duplicates code_ which is also not wonderful.
> >
> > But the control flow in the function I think is a bigger issue.
> >
> ...
> > > I'll spin a v2.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
> Given i already started rewriting and validating the entire garbage
> pile (see other response), mind if i just leave this as-is?  This gets
> completely replaced anyway and i'd rather not have to go backward at
> this point.

Sure

And feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

If I didn't say already

Because the code is right (or so I convinced myself) :)

>
> ~Gregory

--
Cheers, Lorenzo