Re: [PATCH 0/4] mm: Fix page-table teardown during memory hot-remove

[Muchun Song]

> On Oct 10, 2026, at 04:48, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 10/8/26 00:30, Muchun Song wrote:
>> This series is limited to bug fixes for the existing teardown paths.
> 
> Why is this a series? Why not send the architectures independently? Is
> there some dependency where they all need to be applied at once? What do
> you want done with this series? Are you expecting it to be merged via
> the mm path or the individual arch maintainers?

You're right that there is no strict dependency across all three
architectures in v1.

I grouped them because they address the same page-table
constructor/destructor imbalance exposed during memory hot-remove, but
that alone does not require them to be applied as one series.

For v2, I will move the common destructor handling into
pagetable_free() as suggested by David. The RISC-V and arm64 fixes will
then depend on that common MM change, so I plan to keep them in one
series and have it go through the MM tree, with review or acks from
the relevant architecture maintainers.

Thanks,
Muchun