On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 04:13:50PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 4/23/26 15:42, Gregory Price wrote: > > Maybe we could forward the vma+addr here and call a vma_alloc_froze_folio() if > we have a VMA+addr to have a clean interface. > > But really, that hugetlb code is rather messy. I'd vote for leaving hugetlb > alone on a v1, and focusing on non-hugetlb first. >
If we're ok increasing the buddy surface this way, then I'd vote for only updating the exact interfaces that MST needs to update for his use case in a base set of patches, and then have each additional updated location (or logical set of locations) updated in follow-ups. My initial go around with this - the patch was hard to read at best. But I also think we should also seriously consider not increasing the surface of the buddy. We already have two patterns (either you need to call folio_zero_user() or you don't) and adding the wrappers to handle this internally means we have 3. It's a nice to have, but i'm not sure it decreases maintenance issues. Just my 2-cents for what it's worth. ~Gregory
