On 9/23/26 11:15, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 9/23/26 11:04, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 10:45:33AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: >>> On 9/23/26 01:00, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Do we have reason to believe that anyone is seeing any effects from >>>> their arch's failure to rcu-free the page tables? >>>> >>>> This sounds like a rather long-standing wart, yes? >>>> >>>> The patchset is thinly reviewed and mm.git is bursting at the seams >>>> again. I'll play wait-and-see on this series. >>> Do we want to nudge arch maintainers to review? >> >> (Just to note that I replied separately, 'thinly reviewed' is incorrect, it's >> been in -next for weeks and the whole thing was reviewed by Kiryl.) > > Ack. > >> >> The only places where that would be useful is m68k motorola, sparc32. >> >> But in any case it has been heavily tested including on every single arch >> listed with stress testing performed (I think I cover that in the cover >> letter). >> >> The changes are not controversial so I don't think that's a blocker, but >> it'd be nice? > > I doubt we'll ever get sparc32 reviews :) > > I'd definitely appreciate some review on the arch bits from arch maintainers, > but if they don't reply within the next weeks I wouldn't wait on that.
Indeed, for minor arches like this the lack of review (it would be a whole cycle by the merge window) shouldn't be a blocker for important tree-wide progress.
