On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:59:32 -0400 Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 02:40:01PM +0900, Rakie Kim wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:17:46 +0900 Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Gregory > > > > I initially planned to separate this patch from the hotplug-related patch > > series as an independent update. However, after reviewing the code following > > Jonathan's suggestion to consolidate `kobject` and `node_attrs` into a single > > struct, I realized that most of the intended functionality for Patch 2 was > > already incorporated. > > > > As a result, Patch 1 now only contains the `kobject_put` fix, while the > > struct consolidation work has been included in Patch 2. Given the current > > design, it seems more natural to keep Patch 1 and Patch 2 together as part > > of the same patch series rather than separating them. > > > > Rakie > > > > The point of submitting separately was to backport this to LTS via > -stable. We probably still want this since it ostensibly solves a > memory leak - even if the design is to support this work. > > ~Gregory > Patch 1 and Patch 2 are closely related, and I believe that both patches need to be combined to fully support the functionality. 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. 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. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this suggestion. Rakie
