From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from invmail4.hynix.com (exvmail4.skhynix.com [166.125.252.92]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C129ABA36; Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=166.125.252.92 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742806996; cv=none; b=qiPRPF7+ILMv1H5kOXMaFShOw8HvbicmlLcoaf4XEwyufhtWk6/jUfk9NUHW6wiw5Jh0hdw31p+XPTtuuQB0QJ/C9AogMIFUCAM8+HN9zIC7/dvkcc3EKyDK/CmU27/vfMAiSYK9jYh2yHkDPFD5SMemTJN/lJAr2WmnZD/v8S4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742806996; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hnvXGF50uBsNkaYmmEw/Gu4b4XAYpCJ1akHPT7SsV5s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=URTDvxNchs5J9xEhlEa41WJxyyQeQl80ErShQ5G9tBbMQ3GGJZu5UoqfcqDvBccKYN0ja57bVAVnoedfYstprcFfumhmBoYUyYXP0mr4ij/AkcQYusHdQXNXU3lOTDGONzbsP0Au794uFptl62nBrTXQ+Jek4E2JDUa1iaKTFb0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sk.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sk.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=166.125.252.92 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sk.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sk.com X-AuditID: a67dfc5b-669ff7000002311f-85-67e11c41a64b From: Rakie Kim To: Gregory Price Cc: Joshua Hahn , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, david@redhat.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, kernel_team@skhynix.com, honggyu.kim@sk.com, yunjeong.mun@sk.com, Rakie Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:47:50 +0900 Message-ID: <20250324084757.965-1-rakie.kim@sk.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.48.1.windows.1 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXC9ZZnka6jzMN0g83bVC3mrF/DZjF96gVG i6/rfzFb/Lx7nN1i1cJrbBbHt85jtzg/6xSLxeVdc9gs7q35z2qxek2GA5fHzll32T262y6z e7QcecvqsXjPSyaPTZ8msXucmPGbxWPnQ0uP9/uusnl83iQXwBnFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlfF7 cjdzwS3eij37J7E0MN7i6mLk5JAQMJH4ePo4K4y97v4cxi5GDg42ASWJY3tjQEwRAVWJtivu XYxcHMwCH5gk9m1tYAWJCwuES7TOEAXpZAEqmf/rOiOIzStgLLF06gsWiImaEg2X7jGBlHMK mEmcX+UIEhYS4JF4tWE/VLmgxMmZT8DKmQXkJZq3zmYGWSUh8JxN4u2rl4wQcyQlDq64wTKB kX8Wkp5ZSHoWMDKtYhTKzCvLTczMMdHLqMzLrNBLzs/dxAgM9WW1f6J3MH66EHyIUYCDUYmH d8PL++lCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHiPsT5MF+JNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsQozcGiJM5r9K08RUgg PbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cBoomy/k/PK7pl9mbv/BYf/XMncraHx5PLicEflLu6edxM/Lavs iJarq/j4226/lYHJ4rzaPuUfd2J8j7HP4dC7mBTjKe+xrPgDS/2nY9p3tDKXzI2+IVy9X0PE 3X9HG1/v1qmsL3hmm79/nZ12weR203IGtYsmMRd2Rr3Pnq9oW332Unra4h1KLMUZiYZazEXF iQBCdcCvcQIAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCNUNNS9dR5mG6wfOtUhZz1q9hs5g+9QKj xdf1v5gtft49zm7x+dlrZotVC6+xWRzfOo/d4vDck6wW52edYrG4vGsOm8W9Nf9ZLQ5de85q sXpNhsXvbSvYHPg8ds66y+7R3XaZ3aPlyFtWj8V7XjJ5bPo0id3jxIzfLB47H1p6vN93lc3j 220Pj8UvPjB5fN4kF8AdxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXxe3I3c8Et3oo9+yexNDDe4upi5OSQEDCR WHd/DmMXIwcHm4CSxLG9MSCmiICqRNsV9y5GLg5mgQ9MEvu2NrCCxIUFwiVaZ4iCdLIAlcz/ dZ0RxOYVMJZYOvUFC8RETYmGS/eYQMo5Bcwkzq9yBAkLCfBIvNqwH6pcUOLkzCdg5cwC8hLN W2czT2DkmYUkNQtJagEj0ypGkcy8stzEzBxTveLsjMq8zAq95PzcTYzA8F5W+2fiDsYvl90P MQpwMCrx8G54eT9diDWxrLgy9xCjBAezkgjvMdaH6UK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR5 vcJTE4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MOUdX2J74/Pivvup9GdOaryqx4kYGtVzrJq177Xmw 9szUimtNUraOHoueWN0yqpr9Vnjyr/hVsx8q77fRtTNKNfL88vxvhnwUL8+cSdd8On8WbVz1 c9UcV8kjm9zXhJ0X2H3Lnmf7s50Hwuz7y5m61s4+tfVyTem8J7ofVe9xJy+6fO91+eZyNyWW 4oxEQy3mouJEAGffsUdrAgAA X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:03:29 -0400 Gregory Price wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 01:37:22PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote: > > As you mentioned, I agree that Patch 1 may be a bit unclear. > > In fact, Patch 1 and Patch 2 share similar goals, and in my view, > > they only provide complete functionality when applied together. > > > > Initially, I thought that Patch 1 was the fix for the original issue and > > considered it the candidate for a backport. > > However, upon further reflection, I believe that all changes in Patch 1 > > through Patch 3 are necessary to fully address the underlying problem. > > > > Patch 1 does address the immediate issue of calling kfree instead of the > appropriate put() routine, so it is fine to keep this separate. Understood. I will keep this patch as-is for now, as you suggested. > > > Therefore, I now think it makes more sense to merge Patch 1 and Patch 2 > > into a single patch, then renumber the current Patch 3 as Patch 2, > > and treat the entire set as a proper -stable backport candidate. > > > > The set adds functionality and changes the original behavior of the > interface - I'm not clear on the rules on backports in this way. > > Would need input from another maintainer on that. > > Either way, I would keep it separate for now in case just the first > patch is desired for backport. Maintainers can always pick up the set > if that's desired. > > (It also makes these changes easier to review) > ~Gregory In that case, I agree it's better to treat only Patch 1 as a backport candidate for now. As for the remaining patches, it would be more appropriate to discuss their inclusion with other maintainers at a later point. Rakie