[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKPOu+__w0yphmYyCX32_RkSqt1dMB-w0iz45q+B+Z6Ve-p0Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 13:32:40 +0100
From: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>
To: Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com>
Cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, xiubli@...hat.com, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/ceph/file: fix memory leaks in __ceph_sync_read()
On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 1:17 PM Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The full fix is now in the testing branch.
Alex, yet again, you did not reply to any of my questions! This is tiring.
The full fix may be a "full" fix for something else, and just happens
to mix in several other unrelated things, e.g. a fix for the memory
leak bug I found. That is what I call "bad".
My patch is not a "partial" fix. It is a full fix for the memory leak
bug. It just doesn't fix anything else, but that's how it's supposed
to be (and certainly not "bad"): a tiny patch that can be reviewed
easily that addresses just one issue. That's the opposite of
"complications".
> Max, please follow the mailing list, I posted the patch last week on
> the initial thread regarding this issue. Please, comment on the
> correct thread, having two threads regarding the same issue introduces
> unnecessary confusion.
But... THIS is the initial thread regarding this issue (= memory leak).
It is you who creates unnecessary confusion: with your emails and with
your code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists