[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240912105918.GBZuLJhtVBHKK54KFD@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 12:59:18 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Radu Rendec <rrendec@...hat.com>,
Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@....com>, Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] cacheinfo: Allocate memory during CPU hotplug if
not done from the primary CPU
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 04:34:10PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> Yes, both patches address issues during CPU hotplug (both NULL-pointer
> dereference). However, IHMO, they are separate issues. Patch 1/4 fixes
> a missing allocation check. Patch 2/4 causes the allocation to happen in
> case early allocation is not used.
>
> If I did not convince you, I am happy to merge together patches 1 and 2.
Well, what is easier to handle by stable and/or backporters: one patch or two
patches fixing two very similar CPU hotplug isuses in cacheinfo?
IOW, what is the benefit in having two patches instead of one?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists