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;
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 09:59:28 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
        Junxiao Chang <junxiao.chang@intel.com>,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mhocko@suse.com,
        jmarchan@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev,
        Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@intel.com>,
        Dongwon Kim <dongwon.kim@intel.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hugetlb page unmap count balance issue
Message-ID: <2023060803-trailing-ladder-2d53@gregkh>
References: <20230512072036.1027784-1-junxiao.chang@intel.com>
 <CADrL8HV25JyeaT=peaR7NWhUiaBz8LzpyFosYZ3_0ACt+twU6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230512232947.GA3927@monkey>
 <20230515170259.GA3848@monkey>
 <20230516223440.GA30624@monkey>
 <20230607120312.6da5cea7677ec1a3da35b92c@linux-foundation.org>
 <20230607205310.GA4122@monkey>
 <20230607140001.6685b0a058511f125a005da4@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230607140001.6685b0a058511f125a005da4@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:00:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 13:53:10 -0700 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > BUGs aren't good.  Can we please find a way to push this along?
> > > 
> > > Have we heard anything from any udmabuf people?
> > > 
> > 
> > I have not heard anything.  When this issue popped up, it took me by surprise.
> > 
> > udmabuf maintainer (Gerd Hoffmann), the people who added hugetlb support and
> > the list where udmabuf was developed (dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org) have
> > been on cc.
> 
> Maybe Greg can suggest a way forward.

I'm guessing that no one is using this code then, so why don't we just
remove it entirely?

thanks,

greg k-h