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. -- Cheers, David
