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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <9567b456-5656-4a48-a826-332417d76585@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:10:04 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 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
> 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.

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