Re: [PATCH mm-new v8 2/4] mm: khugepaged: refine scan progress number

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 3/25/26 16:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:10:23 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> No need to update the patch description.
>>
>> I will take a look at this (sorry for delay) but general point - while
>> fix-patches are convenient, they're incredibly anti-reviewer.

+1, I could have sworn we brought that up before. :)

>>
>> I hope at some point in the future we can move away from that so you can look at
>> a series on list and know that what's shown there is the actual patch.
> 
> Oh.  I've never really received that message, at least not at all
> clearly.
> 
> I've been hoping that the -fix patches are actually pro-reviewer, for
> those reviewers who have looked at the previous version.  A full resend
> of something you've already looked at is quite annoying!
> 
> I try to mitigate that by sending the
> heres-what-you-changed-since-last-time replies.  It's a little more
> work at this end, but that's not at all a problem.
> 
> I see a couple of options here
> 
> a) I can fold the -fix into the base patch then send out the
>    resulting diff as a reply-to-all.
> 
> b) We can just deprecate the -fix things and ask people for full
>    resends.
> 
> It depends on what people prefer.  How do we determine that?

I like "fix" for smaller "obvious" stuff where a resend is really just
noise.

But for bigger stuff I prefer a full resend (we can still have these
temporary fixups, but for reviewers a follow-up resend is better).

-- 
Cheers,

David