[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-zIBM4zQ0LbGPYZ@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 01:15:48 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...com>,
kernel_team@...ynix.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
joshua.hahnjy@...il.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com, david@...hat.com,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, yunjeong.mun@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted
interleave
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:34:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is going to the final version but could you please add this
> > patch to stable with Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>?
> > We might need to bring the whole series to avoid conflicts to stable tree.
>
> This is all rather confused.
>
> Do we need to backport all three patches into -stable? If so, all three
> should have Fixes:. Preferably they all have the same Fixes: so we
> aren't backporting untested patch combinations.
>
I'd just as soon leave the entire thing out of stable backports.
Only the first patch actually fixes a bug (very small memory leak
during system tear down, so it's not even a critical bug). This could
be added to stable.
Patches 2 and 3 aren't fixes, they're desired behavioral changes
to the feature. An interface being confusing doesn't mean it's broken.
~Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists