[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTAJDRPY24prX8pU@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 17:34:21 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>,
Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mm: kmemleak: use mem_pool_free() to free object
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:22:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:57:50 +0100 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > > Could you please reorder this patch before the previous one? If you
> > > added a Fixes tag, we may want a cc stable as well (as for the other
> > > patches with a Fixes tag) and it makes more sense to backport it on its
> > > own without the __create_object() split. Otherwise:
> >
> > Ah, ignore this. If we want a cc stable, the whole thing needs
> > backporting, including the split which is essential for the subsequent
> > fix.
>
> Do we want a cc:stable? That tag wasn't originally included.
>
> If so, all seven patches?
>
> If "not all seven" then can we please have two series, one for the
> backport patches, one for next merge window.
I think we need all 7 if we are to backport them. But we don't need to
cc stable explicitly, we can send them to stable@...nel.org separately
once tested on those stable versions. So, for the mm tree, don't bother
with cc stable.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists