Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge_page*() target order silently.

[Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>]

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@nvidia.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