Re: [PATCH 07/16] mm/shmem: avoid moving the truncation start backwards

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 10/27/26 00:28, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2026, at 19:24, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> 
>> On 10/27/26 00:16, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> To clarify the dependency, without Zhang Yi’s
>>> truncate_inode_partial_folio() patchset, the ext4 + iomap changes
>>> would cause data loss. We probably want to get Zhang Yi’s patches
>>> in first to avoid that.
>>
>> Ugh, what a mess.
>>
>>>
>>> Patch 7 to 11 do not apply cleanly on top of mm-stable due to Zhang Yi’s
>>> truncate fix, where
>>>
>>> 1. patch 7 can be dropped as I discussed above,
>>> 2. patch 8 needs a folio->mapping guard for the added statement,
>>> 3. patch 9-11 can be applied with fuzzy, but I need to look into
>>> them about functionalities before fully trust what LLM says.
>> Yeah, let me take a look tomorrow.
> 
> I will reply to these patches individually in terms of rebasing on
> top of mm-stable and how they interact with Zhang Yi’s changes.
> It is not too bad at first look.
> 
>>
>> I cannot put into words how much this shmem + pagecache shite annoys me.
>>
>> What a piece of crap people created here. And looking at the massive changes to
>> fix stuff, what a piece of crap people are creating.
>>
>> I better go to sleep now :)
> 
> Good night. :)

Thanks! :)

-- 
Cheers,

David