linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge

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: <FEFDFFAF-63BD-463A-B8B2-D2B2744DEE2F@nvidia.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:16:10 -0400
From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, linmiaohe@...wei.com,
 david@...hat.com, jane.chu@...cle.com, kernel@...kajraghav.com,
 syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
 syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>,
 Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>,
 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
 linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge_page*()
 target order silently.

On 17 Oct 2025, at 5:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 10:06:41AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:03:27PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 16 Oct 2025, at 16:59, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:32:17 -0400 Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do we want to cc stable?
>>>>>
>>>>> This only triggers a warning, so I am inclined not to.
>>>>> But some config decides to crash on kernel warnings. If anyone thinks
>>>>> it is worth ccing stable, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Yes please.  Kernel warnings are pretty serious and I do like to fix
>>>> them in -stable when possible.
>>>>
>>>> That means this patch will have a different routing and priority than
>>>> the other two so please split the warning fix out from the series.
>>>
>>> OK. Let me send this one and cc stable.
>>
>> You've added a bunch of confusion here, now if I review the rest of this series

What confusion I have added here? Do you mind elaborating?

>> it looks like I'm reviewing it with this stale patch included.
>>
>> Can you please resend the remainder of the series as a v3 so it's clear? Thanks!
>
> Oh and now this entire series relies on that one landing to work :/
>
> What a mess - Can't we just live with one patch from a series being stable and
> the rest not? Seems crazy otherwise.

This is what Andrew told me. Please settle this with Andrew if you do not like
it. I will hold on sending new version of this patchset until either you or
Andrew give me a clear guidance on how to send this patchset.

>
> I guess when you resend you'll need to put explicitly in the cover letter
> 'relies on patch xxxx'

Why? I will simply wait until this patch is merged, then I can send the rest
of two. Separate patchsets with dependency is hard for review, why would I
send them at the same time?

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi