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

[Kiryl Shutsemau]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 05:04:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 6/1/26 16:17, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Seems to be passed now.
> > 
> >> It's concerning how frequently Sashiko is finding pre-existing things.  What
> >> would a full scan of mm/ tell us?  Gulp.
> > 
> > Yeah... :/
> > 
> > I will look at the new batch of pre-existing issues when I have spare
> > cycles. I am not sure I have the bandwidth to find the bottom of this
> > rabbit hole.
> > 
> > What do you want me to with the main userfaultfd patchset? Sashiko
> > failed to apply it because it is on top of the pre-existing fixes.
> 
> I suspect it might have a minor conflict with another incoming fix from Lorenzo
> as well.
> 
> Probably put it into mm-unstable early after the next release? At least I think
> it's not in mm-unstable yet and we are approaching the net release quickly ...

I guess I would need to patch man-pages that got applied. I put 7.2
there...

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov