Re: [PATCH net-next v22 00/14] Replace page_frag with page_frag_cache for sk_page_frag()

On 2024/10/24 17:05, Paolo Abeni wrote:

Hi,

I just noted MM maintainer and ML was not CC on the cover-letter (but
they were on the relevant patches), adding them now.

On 10/19/24 10:27, Yunsheng Lin wrote:

quoted

On 10/19/2024 1:39 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:

quoted

So I still think this set should be split in half in order to make
this easier to review. The ones I have provided a review-by for so far
seem fine to me. I really think if you just submitted that batch first
we can get that landed and let them stew in the kernel for a bit to
make sure we didn't miss anything there.

It makes sense to me too that it might be better to get those submitted
to get more testing if there is no more comment about it.

I am guessing they should be targetting net-next tree to get more
testing as all the callers of page_frag API seem to be in the
networking, right?

Hi, David, Jakub & Paolo
It would be good if those patches are just cherry-picked from this
patchset as those patches with 'Reviewed-by' tag seem to be applying
cleanly. Or any better suggestion here?

We can cherry pick the patches from the posted series, applying the
review tags as needed, but we need an explicit ack from the mm

Thanks.
I would be good to cherry pick the below one too, as it has also a
'Reviewed-by' tag. I mentioned that it might be easier to miss that
one because it sits after one without 'Reviewed-by' and it seems to
be also applied cleanly:

[net-next,v22,08/14] mm: page_frag: use __alloc_pages() to replace alloc_pages_node()

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20241018105351.1960345-9-linyunsheng@huawei.com/

maintainer, given the mentioned patches touch mostly such code.

Sorry for missing to cc Andrew and MM ML.
Maybe I should have mentioned that Andrew provided an 'Acked-by' in
patch 2, but it is always safer to double check it.

I would like to avoid repeating a recent incident of unintentionally
stepping on other subsystem toes.

@Andrew: are you ok with the above plan?

Thank you,

Paolo