On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 05:16:53PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 04:53:14PM -0400, Gregory Price wrote: > > > > As a start: > > > > 1) the user_addr and zeroing piece seems like a discrete > > improvement worthy of its own set - aside from end goal. > > > > This is needed by your patch set, but was requested to > > try to push us towards a more reasonable pattern for > > folio_zero_user(). > > What I worry about is people can't agree what api they want. >
Oh that's just our base state of existence. We mostly agree that all APIs are bad in some way and we don't want any of them :P What you're looking for is to get people to agree to the least-offensive, least-worst option :] I don't think we're far off from that. I suggest doing as Zi said and start a [DISCUSSION] thread on specifically this and lay out the needs and wants and design issues that you've learned from the past set of versions and continue the discussion there. It helps to take some snippets from your set to lay out what you've learned and explain why you need the folio_user_zero() stuff to get from A->Z, and then let maintainers hash out whether that should live in post_alloc_hook or new interfaces (or outside page_alloc.c altogether). > I don't mind trying all kind of approaches, but it seems to > be past the point where people feel it's costing too much of > their time with all of these revisions. > People are still commenting, so I don't think you've gotten there yet. I think the rate of revision is what's costing too much attention. You'd save yourself some revisions by taking the attention you have right now and starting the discussion thread (and consider submitting the topic to LPC if that's something interests you!). All this is to say you're doing fine, just keep on keepin' on. Maybe pivot your approach from iterations to discussion for a bit until the opinions settle. ~Gregory
