Re: [PATCH 0/15] mm: introduce ANON_VMA_LAZY for deferred anon_vma creation

[Pedro Falcato]

On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 04:37:14PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 10:46:35AM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2026/6/2 10:15, Barry Song wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:46 AM wangtao <tao.wangtao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > You said discussion was welcome, yet when someone offered even a
> > > > small comment, you refused to continue the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > If I had known you would be this inconsistent, I would not have
> > > > replied to you in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > This will be my last reply to you. I will not respond again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Tao,
> > >
> > > Please don't walk away from the linux-mm community. I read your
> > > patchset and found it quite valuable. It not only reduces memory
> > > overhead, but also eliminates rmap costs for exclusive folios.
> > >
> > > Since I'm not very confident discussing technical topics in English,
> > > I wrote a blog post in Chinese about your patchset:
> > >
> > > https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/k00tzhTl8HbL3k4G6ev4SA
> > >
> > > I have to admit that I found the implementation quite complex and
> > > in need of significant improvement. However, I think the underlying
> > > idea is very interesting and worth exploring further.
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to seeing a v2 RFC with a cleaner and simpler
> > > implementation while preserving the core concept.
> > >
> > > Regardless of whether it ultimately gets merged, I hope the discussion
> > > can continue.
> >
> > Same here :)
> >
> > Tao, please don't let this thread get you down. No first RFC is
> > perfect, and the idea still looks worth discussing :)
> >
> > Thanks for working on this!
> 
> Guys, this isn't helpful.
> 
> We aren't extending anon_vma, and I am working on replacing it, that's the
> bottom line.
> 
> I have presented compelling evidence suggesting this is AI generated. In
> response I got more AI-generated nonsense. There's no trust, the code and
> analysis are all wrong, end of discussion.

100% agree. I think plenty of technical/process/etc reasons as to why this
idea/contribution is not mergeable have been listed. Overriding this with
"keep it up!!!111!11!!" is not helpful.

-- 
Pedro