Re: [PATCH 0/6] userfaultfd/pagemap: pre-existing fixes

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 05:34:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2026 18:23:24 +0100 "Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <kas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > These are pre-existing bug fixes that were carried at the front of the
> > userfaultfd RWP working-set-tracking series up to v5 [1]. Per review
> > feedback that fixes should not sit in the middle of a feature series,
> > they are split out and sent on their own; the RWP series is reposted
> > rebased on top of this.
> >
> > All six were flagged by the Sashiko AI review of the RWP series and
> > carry Reported-by: Sashiko AI review <sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx>. They are
> > independent of RWP, apply to mm-new directly, and carry Cc: stable@.
>
> And...  this made Sashiko point at other stuff:
> 	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260529172331.356655-1-kas@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> I can't figure out why four of the scans failed - "View Raw Log" comes up empty.
>
> It's concerning how frequently Sashiko is finding pre-existing things.  What
> would a full scan of mm/ tell us?  Gulp.
>

Yeah, but I also kinda wish it didn't do this :) It's similar to sending a
series, and somebody replying saying 'well this is totally unrelated but <blah
blah blah>' and expecting a reply :>)

You'd want that person to just submit a patch for the issue or a [DISCUSSION] or
[BUG] thread or something, but interrupting, possibly delaying + taking people's
(usually very limited) time on something unrelated is just unhelpful I think.

I'd prefer Sashiko had a passive mode that checked for existing stuff elsewhere,
and it saved the tokens doing it for a new series :)

Just my 2 pence!

Cheers, Lorenzo