On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 05:52:39PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > 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
I can reorder and put alignment before threading, sure, that's trivial: these patches are all independent and cause no conflicts when reordering. So far the main work will be the hugetlb thing - it really parallels what I did with post_alloc_hook, to think of it. Will take me a couple of days, I'm behind on other tasks. -- MST
