linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted interleave

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <62664200-c087-48ed-960f-264f340cf7af@sk.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:32:03 +0900
From: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@...com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel_team@...ynix.com, Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@...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

Hi Gregory,

On 4/2/2025 2:15 PM, Gregory Price wrote:
> 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.

I think those are fixes but I also agree that this is behavioral changes as
well.  So I'm fine leaving these out of stable backports.


Hi Andrew,

I won't ask changes so please keep the current status as is.  Sorry for making
confusion.

Thanks,
Honggyu

> 
> ~Gregory