Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] mm/hmm: Clarify notifier retry state and scope HMM timeouts

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

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:59:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 7/15/26 19:14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:39:37 -0700 Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Please don't do this, this is completely impossible to track for review :)
> >>>
> >>> mm review is currently very difficult based on volumes, it'll become impossible
> >>> to manage if people sound fragments of series.
> >>>
> >>> Please just resend the whole thing at this point.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, I followed the guidance provided by Andrew, and I believe he
> >> applied all of the changes, including these, to the `mm` tree.
> >>
> >> Do you still want me to send v9 under these circumstances?
> >
> > Sure, if that's what reviewers prefer.
> >
> > This is a bit unfriendly to people who have already reviewed the code.
> > Which is one of the reasons why I respond to a new version with a
> > single diff showing reviewers (and the author, and myself) what changed
> > since the previous version.
>
> As much as I dislike fixup patches, I tolerate them in reply to the existing series.
>
> But having some random fixup series is just crazy, really.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

Yes.

Stanislav - also see Jason's suggestion - if you give a base commit then sashiko
seems to work better. Maybe look at using b4 which does all of this for you
automatically?

Thanks, Lorenzo