MM/iomap review of this v10 patchset is needed please [was: Re: [PATCH v10 7/7] NFSD: drop a shared boundary page only once both WRITEs have written it]

[Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>]

[Cc: trimmed given To: refocused to required audience]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 05:49:33PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 
> I suspect MM engineers have just been busy with the merge window.
> Hopefully Willy and/or Jens will give v10 the courtesy of fair review?

I checked with Jens to see if he'd have time to review v10 but he is
unable due to his attention being needed elsewhere.

So Willy, Jan, Christian: can you please coordinate on reviewing this
v10 submission with consideration for 7.5?

Probably worth me restating this note from the cover-letter:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/20261103211754.35352-1-snitzer@kernel.org/

"Merging: Chuck suggested taking the series through the mm tree.  1/7 to
6/7 apply cleanly to each of these mm branches:

  mm-unstable  0ea6dc8c4a21 ("fs/proc/task_mmu: fix lost maps entries above 2^63")
  mm-new       74d73ffcffe0 ("riscv: mm: fix concurrency in mark_new_valid_map()")
  mm-stable    6628e7d4c6b2 ("Linux 7.4-rc1")

7/7 needs the NFSD direct-mode changes that are in cel/nfsd-testing.
The whole series applies to cel/nfsd-testing at 693afd3ce9ae ("NFSD:
Defer the PUTFH export security flavor check"), where each patch builds
with W=1 with no warnings.  So 7/7 could follow in the nfsd tree once
the mm part is merged."

(and I have just revalidated that patches 1-6 still apply cleanly to
the latest mm trees listed above, with commits 93d7a816a2df,
488f62a72b8e and fa4ad798f6f6 respectively)

Thanks,
Mike