On 4/8/26 21:48, Nico Pache wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 2:56 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 3/12/26 21:36, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >>> >>> Okay, now I am confused. Why are you not taking care of >>> collapse_scan_pmd() in the same context? >>> >>> Because if you make sure that we properly check against a max_ptes_swap >>> similar as in the style above, we'd rule out swapin right from the start? >>> >>> Also, I would expect that all other parameters in there are similarly >>> handled? >>> >> >> Okay, I think you should add the following: > > Hey! Thanks for all your reviews here. > > For multiple reasons, here is the solution I developed: > > Add a patch before the generalize __collapse.. patch that reworks the > max_ptes* handling and introduces the helpers (no functional changes).
I assume that's roughly the patch I shared below? If so, sounds good to me. -- Cheers, David
