Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5f52de70-975-e94f-f141-543765736181@google.com>
 <c4b8485b-1f26-1a5f-bdf-c6c22611f610@google.com> <CAHk-=whmq5gHrKmD3j=7nB=n9OmmLb5j1qmoQPHw1=VSQ-V=hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <93fa81ae-d848-58c2-9f70-27446bf9baa8@google.com> <20221118140346.b9026301b4ba03e43e15aeca@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221118140346.b9026301b4ba03e43e15aeca@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:07:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whrA5F=cJ4yk6C5uyg2VniwFMHp9U_DLBB-9uZbqdd25w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm,thp,rmap: rework the use of subpages_mapcount
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 2:03 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'd prefer that approach.

The "that approach" is a bit ambiguous here, particularly considering
how you quoted things.

But I think from the context you meant "keep them as two separate
series, even if the second undoes part of the first and does it
differently".

And that's fine. Even if it's maybe a bit odd to introduce that
locking that then goes away, I can't argue with "the first series was
already reviewed and has gone through a fair amount of testing".

             Linus