Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] mm: distinguish PTE table storage from PTE values

[Muhammad Usama Anjum]

On 23/09/2026 1:25 pm, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 11:29:52AM +0100, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> 
> Hi Muhammad,
> 
>> I've the patches here [3] for arm64 conversion which I used to find
>> usages in generic code which I missed during development. These would be
>> sent separately.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6110202c-057b-4701-8c04-1a76ee7bb9ab@xxxxxxx/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/a063f6c5-2785-4a9f-8079-25edb3e54cef@xxxxxxx
>> [3] https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-us/-/commits/pte0_arm
> 
> I checked [3] with s390 and also against our lazy mmu implementation and it
> looks okay.
> 
> However, is there a particular reason this series is against mm-new?
> Should it be against the master, it would be easier for me to try it in our CI.

I think, mm-new is the branch in which this series would be picked up. This is
why its based on that. Are you referring to mm/master?

-- 
Thanks,
Usama