Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] mm/huge_memory: refactor zap_huge_pmd()

[Mike Rapoport]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 02:36:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:34:31 +0000 Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > FWIW I wholeheartedly agree. I don't understand how we don't require proper
> > M: or R: reviews on patches before merging
> 
> I wish people would stop making this claim, without substantiation. 
> I've looked (deeply) at the data, which is equally available to us all.
> Has anyone else?
>
> After weeding out a few special cases (especially DAMON) (this time
> also maple_tree), the amount of such unreviewed material which enters
> mm-stable and mainline is very very low.

Here's a breakout of MM commit tags (with DAMON excluded) since 6.10:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Release        Total   Reviewed-by   Acked-by only   No review   DAMON excl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
v6.10            318     206 (65%)        36 (11%)    76 (24%)           10
v6.11            270     131 (49%)        72 (27%)    67 (25%)           17
v6.12            333     161 (48%)        65 (20%)   107 (32%)           18
v6.13            180      94 (52%)        29 (16%)    57 (32%)            8
v6.14            217     103 (47%)        40 (18%)    74 (34%)           30
v6.15            289     129 (45%)        45 (16%)   115 (40%)           43
v6.16            198     126 (64%)        44 (22%)    28 (14%)           16
v6.17            245     181 (74%)        41 (17%)     23 (9%)           53
v6.18            205     150 (73%)        28 (14%)    27 (13%)           34
v6.19            228     165 (72%)        33 (14%)    30 (13%)           64
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
There's indeed sharp reduction in amount of unreviewed material that gets
merged since v6.15, i.e. after the last LSF/MM when we updated the process
and nominated people as sub-maintainers and reviewers for different parts
of MM. This very much confirms that splitting up the MM entry and letting
people to step up as sub-maintaners pays off.

But we are still at double digits for percentage of commits without
Reviewed-by tags despite the effort people (especially David and Lorenzo)
are putting into review. I wouldn't say that even 9% is "very very low".

> > Like, sure, sashiko can be useful, and is better than nothing. But unless
> > sashiko is better than the maintainers, it should be kept as optional.
> 
> Rule #1 is, surely, "don't add bugs".  This thing finds bugs.  If its
> hit rate is 50% then that's plenty high enough to justify people
> spending time to go through and check its output.
> 
> > Seriously, I can't wrap my head around the difference in treatment in
> > "human maintainers, experts in the code, aren't required to review a patch"
> 
> Speaking of insulting.
> 
> > vs "make the fscking AI happy or it's not going anywhere". It's almost
> > insulting.
> 
> Look, I know people are busy.  If checking these reports slows us down
> and we end up merging less code and less buggy code then that's a good
> tradeoff.

If you think this is a good trade-off, then slowing down to wait for human
review so we merge up less buggy or less maintainable code is a good
trade-off too.

While LLMs can detect potential bugs, they are not capable to identify
potential maintainability issues.
 
> Also, gimme a break.  Like everyone else I'm still trying to wrap my
> head how best to incorporate this new tool into our development
> processes.

It would be nice if we had a more formal description of our development
process in Documentation/process/maintainer-mm.rst and then we can add a
few sentences about how to incorporate this tool into the process when we
figure this out.

Right now our process is a tribal knowledge, having "Rule #1" and a few
others written down would help everyone who participates in MM development.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.