On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:55:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:42:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 09:06:49 -0800 Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 07:52:15PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > > > Introduce 'memvalue()' which uses 'memparse()' to parse a string > > > > with optional memory suffix into a non-negative number. If parsing > > > > has succeeded, returns 0 and stores the result at the location > > > > specified by the second argument. Otherwise returns -EINVAL and > > > > leaves the location untouched. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> > > > > Suggested-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <[email protected]> > > > > > > LGTM, thanks! > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > > > Thanks, I'll add both these to mm.git's mm-nonmm-unstable branch for > > testing. > > > > If XFS people would prefer to take [2/2] via the xfs tree then please > > lmk and I'll send it over when [1/2] is upstreamed. Or we can take > > both patches via the xfs tree. Or something. Sending out an acked-by: > > would be simplest! > > I assumed this would go via xfs tree, but I'm happy to do whatever.
Particularly I find it much simpler to have those inter-dependent patches to go through in a single series via a single tree, instead of breaking them apart and create merge dependencies. As long as xfs list is in the loop I particularly don't mind. Thanks for pulling it Andrew. Carlos > > -- > Kees Cook >
