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

[Vernon Yang]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:23 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
<david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/26 16:20, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 04:17:21PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> >> On 3/25/26 16:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> +1, I could have sworn we brought that up before. :)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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).

Yeah, I completely agree with this policy.

Initially, I thought it was just cleanup without functional changes, but
I didn't consider the new reviewers (haven't seen the previous version).
Sorry.

Although this patchset is already in the mm-stable branch, if we want to
resend V9 version, I'd be happy to do so. Please let me know. Thanks!

> > Yeah, it's really about being able to come to a series later and be able to
> > comment line-by-line.
> >
> > Really larger stuff should be resent I think, esp. if there's multiple
> > fixes in the series.
> >
> > A reply with the same-patch-but-with-fix-applied would definitely be
> > useful!
>
> Right, for completeness, this is what we had in an off-list thread:
>
> "
> Not sure if that's a problem for others, but I got the feeling that this
> escalated a bit lately.
>
> I know, that we prefer fixups to sort out smaller stuff. So far so good.
> In the last time there were some series where I was seriously completely
> lost which state of the patches would go upstream, or what I should even
> review, because there were just fixups over fixups.
>
> Fixups are nice, but for someone reviewing a series, too many fixups
> (either as inline patch or even worse, as independent patches) just
> causes a mess.
>
> It also gives the impression of "this is mostly done, so don't waste
> your time reviewing it anymore." --- "just the finishing touches" ---
> "don't jump in late and cause trouble".
> "

--
Cheers,
Vernon