Re: [PATCH mm-new v8 2/4] mm: khugepaged: refine scan progress number

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 21:16:11 +0100 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org> wrote:

> On 3/25/26 21:03, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 12:15:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 18:53:40 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I mean instead of having a separate commit for the fix, put that fix into the
> >>> patch before it and denote it with a footer as you put above.
> >>>
> >>> I guess that translates to what you do when you rebase and fold the fixes into
> >>> commits as you do now anyway.
> >>>
> >>> I don't see any reason not to do that right away, as really it's good to see the
> >>> combined change in one go for all practical purposes (if I resend, I'll be
> >>> combining work, if I can grab it from the tree and avoid a git rebase -i all the
> >>> better).
> >>
> >> OK.  So what have we concluded here?
> >>
> >> Is it: if I get a -fix, I add that in the usual way, then temporarily
> >> fold it into the base patch and mail the result out for fyi.  Then
> >> after <period> I permanently fold the fix into the base and add the
> >> footer?
> >>
> >> If so, what's <period>?
> > 
> > To me it feels like that should be 0, just squash it in right away,

OK...

> since the trees are being rebased constantly right?

yup, the mm-*_unstable branches and mm-new are blown away and rebuilt
from quilt each time.  And the quilt patches are rediffed and refreshed
during this.

> > And that means the tree contains exactly what it would if the series were
> > re-sent.
> > 
> > David, what do you think?
> 
> How often was it helpful that a fixup patch would stay separate? I would
> assume "not often". :)

Not often.  Sometimes a -fix is messed up and we grow a -fix-fix.  The
record is something like -fix-fix-fix-fix-fix.  I suppose there's
slight value in tracking this for a while.  Not much though.