On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:41:16PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 12:05:18PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:02:39AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Same change as the previous patch but for alloc_swap_folio: > > > pass vmf->address directly instead of ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, ...). > > > > > > > Starting to seem like this should all just get squashed into once patch. > > > > ~Gregory > > I mean I was told the patches are too big and too hard to review. > It's just same, independent changes made in several places. > Does it matter if they are squashed or not? >
Mostly i think the ordering of the patches thrashes from one set (alignment) to another set (USER_ADDR_NONE). If all of one set was pulled ahead of the other then it would be easier to follow. This particular set seemed trivial enough to just be one patch, but i don't think it matters all that much. ~Gregory
