Re: [PATCH v8 0/8] mm/hmm: Add mmap lock-drop support for userfaultfd-backed mappings

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 10:57:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 09:09:51 -0700 Stanislav Kinsburskii [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 03:45:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:57:55 -0700 Stanislav Kinsburskii [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

I rebased this series on top of mm-new right before sending it out.
Should I have used a different branch?

mm-new is good - Sashiko attempts that.  But it's changing rapidly at
this point in the development cycle.

I’d like to send another revision addressing a few comments and also
replace the `max/max_t` check with something simpler.

Which branch should I base it on so that Sashiko can apply it
successfully?

mainline Linus would be safest.

Looks like linux-next/master has been updated with the v8 of the series.

That's because v8 is in mm.git's mm-unstable branch.

quoted

I have v9 with a few small fixes, but it is too late to send it out already?

It's called "unstable" for a reason!  Material in mm-unstable is still
under review, test and the latest stages of development.  Getting
things finalized for movement into the non-rebasing mm-stable branch,
then into mainline.

So altering or replacing patchsets while they're in mm-unstable is
perfectly OK and expected.

quoted

If it's not, then what should I base it on?

Well it's a bit tricky to replace a series when it's in mm-unstable. 
One can do a git-checkout of the commit which precedes the v8 series. 
Or base on current Linus mainline, which usually works out.

Sending little fixup patches against what's presently in mm-unstable
also works.  I'll queue each one immediately behind the patch which it
alters then squash them into their parent patch before moving the series
into mm-stable.

A third alternative is for me to drop v8 from mm-unstable, then you
wait until that has propagated onto the servers or into linux-next,
then base on that.  This approach is OK but I kinda unprefer it because
there's a bit of latency and it makes it harder for me to prepare my
"here's how v9 altered mm.git" summaries.


Which would you prefer?

Well, given that Sashiko didn’t pick up my series based on mm-new, I’d
prefer to send a few follow-up patches in the hope that they will be
reviewed in the context of the original series.

Thanks,
Stanislav