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. > 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
