Re: [PATCH v1] mempool: fix min_nr exceeding the elements array after concurrent resizes

[Vitaly Wool]

> On Oct 18, 2026, at 6:15 PM, Harry Yoo <harry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 06:03:15PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>>>> How about we take my patch [1] instead since
>>>> it isn't prone to this bug and is a nice optimization to the existing
>>>> mempool_resize() at the same time?
>>> 
>>> It is not a good idea to squeeze a bug fix and an optimization
>>> into one patch.
>> 
>> Generally speaking, yes. But that patch had been submitted before the fix
>> popped up, so there was no sqeezing per se.
> 
> I mean the patch you've submitted does two things (wihch is not good).
> 
> It should be split into two patches that 1) fixes the bug and 2)
> optimizes it.

I don’t think this is a fair statement. I would say that the patch I’ve submitted improves mempool_resize() to be rid of unnecessary reallocations and data copying, and that (improved) implementation is *not* prone to the race found in the previous version of this function.
 
~Vitaly