On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 2:14 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm) <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Ok cool! Yeah very similar. I was just making sure you weren't dead set on it being squashed into the other patch. > > -- > Cheers, > > David >
