linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/13] mm/damon/core: Commit damos->target_nid/migrate

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250708173253.54732-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue,  8 Jul 2025 10:32:53 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
	damon@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	corbet@....net,
	joshua.hahnjy@...il.com,
	bijantabatab@...ron.com,
	venkataravis@...ron.com,
	emirakhur@...ron.com,
	ajayjoshi@...ron.com,
	vtavarespetr@...ron.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/13] mm/damon/core: Commit damos->target_nid/migrate_dests

Hi Bijan,

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 09:04:02 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:03 PM SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed,  2 Jul 2025 15:13:30 -0500 Bijan Tabatabai <bijan311@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bijan Tabatabai <bijantabatab@...ron.com>
> > >
> > > When committing new scheme parameters from the sysfs, copy the
> > > target_nid and migrate_dests of the source schemes into the destination
> > > schemes.
> >
> > Fixing the missed update of target_nid deserves Fixes: and Cc: stable@ in my
> > opinion.  Could you please split and post the part as another patch?  For the
> > Fixes, I think 83dc7bbaecae ("mm/damon/sysfs: use damon_commit_ctx()") should
> > be appripriate.
> 
> Hi SJ,
> 
> To clarify, would you prefer it to be a seperate patch within the next
> version of this patchset? Or would you prefer it to be sent separately
> from the next version of the patchset?

I'd prefer latter (separate one).

Sorry for making the point ambiguous, and giving me this chance to clarify :)


Thanks,
SJ

[...]