On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:36 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:27 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 05:21:00PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > > > Great and thanks. > > > > > > > > Can you send out a seperate patch and label it with "PATCH v5.9"? > > > > I run: > > > > $ git format-patch -1 --subject-prefix="PATCH v5.9" --signoff > > > > > > > > Normally, I catch patches from any patchwork URL in mbox format. > > > > > > Maybe wait a few hours for people to decide if they like the approach > > > taken to fix the bug before diving into producing backports? > > > > That make sense. > > > > You have a test-case for me? > > I have here Linux-Test-Project and FIO available. > > Qian reported preadv203.c could reproduce it easily on POWER and ARM. > They have 64kB pages, so it's easier to hit. You need to have a > filesystem with block size < page size to hit the problem. > > If you want to check that your test case hits the problem, stick a printk > in iomap_page_create(). I run both linux-kernel on my Debian/unstable AMD64 host (means not in a VM) with and without your patch. Instructions: cd /opt/ltp ./runltp -f syscalls -s preadv203 Unfortunately, the logs in the "results" directory have only the short summary. Testcase Result Exit Value -------- ------ ---------- preadv203 PASS 0 preadv203_64 PASS 0 So, I guess I am not hitting the issue? Or do I miss some important kernel-config? - Sedat -
