[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-zJ2YlvXtP4ziyH@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 01:23:37 -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 Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:15:48AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:34:39PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>
Just some added clarity:
The behavioral change in sysfs change goes from N_POSSIBLE nodes always
being exposed - to sysfs entries coming and going as nodes transition
between having memory and not having memory.
I can see the argument for wanting this backported as a fix to ensure
userspace software is consistent across LTS.
So for backporting: all or nothing - and all the fixes tags should be
the same.
~Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists