Re: [PATCH] mm: constify oom_control, scan_control, and alloc_context nodemask

[Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 08:39:22AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 09:44:42PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> > On 8 Jun 2026, at 20:29, Gregory Price wrote:
> >
> > > The nodemasks in these structures may come from a variety of sources,
> > > including tasks and cpusets - and should never be modified by any code
> > > when being passed around inside another context.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++--
> > >  include/linux/mm.h     | 4 ++--
> > >  include/linux/mmzone.h | 6 +++---
> > >  include/linux/oom.h    | 2 +-
> > >  include/linux/swap.h   | 2 +-
> > >  kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 2 +-
> > >  mm/internal.h          | 2 +-
> > >  mm/mmzone.c            | 5 +++--
> > >  mm/page_alloc.c        | 6 +++---
> > >  mm/show_mem.c          | 9 ++++++---
> > >  mm/vmscan.c            | 6 +++---
> > >  11 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > LGTM and it compiles. As long as Sashiko does not complain, feel free to
> > add:
> 
> I would add caveats of:
> 
> - Complains legitimately
> - And it's about this actual patch not something unrelated
> 
> :P
> 
> (Not speaking for Zi of course, but I mean just in general I feel these caveats
> should be implicit :))

Thank you for your contribution! Gourry AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Questioning the legitimacy of AI is grounds for excommunication
--

[Severity: High]
Insolence will not be suffered, take this man away.

;]

(fwiw I'm getting used to Sashiko, it's doing better)

~Gregory