Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Remove PG_private by using page/folio->private checks instead

[Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 Sep 2026, at 23:39, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 22:23:58 -0400 Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> This patchset removes PG_private to make space for upcoming PG_folio for
>> identifying pages from a folio (more details in Note below). Instead of
>> checking PG_private, all code is changed to check page/folio->private !=
>> NULL instead.
>>
>> MM people are cc'd on all patches and subsystem people are cc'd on the
>> cover letter and corresponding patches.
>>
>> Patch 6 is picked up separately in f2fs tree, but since mm-new does not
>> have it yet, it is sent for MM testing.
>
> AI review claims to have found a pre-existing critical level deadlock
> in f2fs:
>
>       
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260913-remove-pg_private-v4-0-848550f7574e@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> it also had a few things to say about this patchset and, as always,
> hugetlb.c.

It seems that Sashiko overwrote my patch reviews with the reviews to
Matthew’s md patches. :/ I wonder if there is a way of recovering them.

>
>
> Thanks, The MM bits appear adequately reviewed and review of the non-MM
> bits are, as usual:
>
>   Great to have but I won't permit lack of other-than-MM review to
>   block MM improvements.
>
> So I'll queue it all up and shall push it into -next after a few days.
>
> Acks from non-MM maintainers are appreciated.
>
> If a non-MM patch appears in linux-next I'll autodrop the mm.git copy
> of that patch.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi