On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:43 AM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:40 AM Christopher Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Is this going in this cycle? I have a bunch of stuff on top of this to > > enable slab object migration. > > No. > > It was based on a buggy branch that isn't getting pulled To be clear, I don't think the problem you identified can be triggered in practice. We are under the equivalent of the page lock for dax in that path, and if ->mapping is NULL we would bail before finding that the mapping-size helper returns zero. > so when I > started looking at it, the pull request was rejected before I got much > further. For the record I think skipping the entirety of the libnvdimm pull request for this cycle due to that misuse of ilog2() is overkill, but it's not my kernel. Andrew, I think this means we need to lean on you to merge dax-memory-failure and Xarray for 4.20 rather than try to coordinate our own git branches for these specific topics. At a minimum for 4.19 I think we should disable MADV_HWPOISON for dax mappings this cycle to at least close that trivial method to crash the kernel when using dax. Dave, I recommend dropping dax-memory-failure and sending the other libnvdimm topics for 4.19 that have been soaking in -next.
