On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 07:30:54AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 07:08:22 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 04:12:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:50:15 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > erofs and zonefs are using vma_desc_test_any() twice to check whether > > > > all > > > > of VMA_SHARED_BIT and VMA_MAYWRITE_BIT are set, this is silly, so add > > > > vma_desc_test_all() to test all flags and update erofs and zonefs to use > > > > it. > > > > > > > > While we're here, update the helper function comments to be more > > > > consistent. > > > > > > > > Also add the same to the VMA test headers. > > > > > > fwiw, we have no review tags on this one. > > > > Based on the discussion we had about this previously I was under the > > impression > > if submitted by a maintainer that wasn't required? > > Well, it's a gray area. Obviously it's better if people's stuff is > checked by co-maintainers or by others.
OK that contradicts the previous conversation we had where you had to convince me that this was ok (which I ended up agreeing with), rather than being a grey area. We had quite a long conversation about maintainers are in a trusted role so a co-maintainer would have called it out it was wrong and etc. But sure it'd be nice to get review, obviously I agree with that. > > I'm not inclined to make a fuss about it though (hence "fwiw"). Quite > a lot of unreviewed maintainer-authored material ends up going upstream > and I don't think that's causing much harm. I think you need to be a lot clearer in communicating these things while the process remains undocumented. In this case for instance, I took that to mean that you required review, the 'fwiw' doesn't really make it clear that this was optional, especially given this patch is so trivial. > > In a lot of cases this is pretty much unavoidable because the patch > comes from a sole maintainer (SJ, Sergey, Ulad, Liam come to mind). > But when the author has co-maintainers, perhaps those people could step > up. Right. > > > I'll nag people, but I'm a bit surprised if this is why you haven't moved > > this > > to mm-stable, given how trivially obviously correct this patch is. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/pc/devel-series > shows my expected merging order. It looks like this one will be in the > next batch ->mm-stable. > I'll definietly need some decoding of that to understand where each batch is? To me it reads as a bunch of inscrutible #'s and file names... Thanks, Lorenzo
