Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leaks in weighted interleave sysfs

[Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:03:29 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net> 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