Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory: fix folio_set_dirty() vs. folio_mark_dirty() in zap_pte_range()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx" <Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/memory: fix folio_set_dirty() vs. folio_mark_dirty() in zap_pte_range()
From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:57:13 +0100
Cc: "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <PUZPR04MB6316745B9234C3B5781AEA1381742@PUZPR04MB6316.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <20240122171751.272074-1-david@redhat.com> <PUZPR04MB6316745B9234C3B5781AEA1381742@PUZPR04MB6316.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 23.01.24 09:49, Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx wrote:

Reviewed-by: Yuezhang Mo <Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx>

Without this fix, testing the latest exfat with xfstests, test cases generic/029
and generic/030 will fail.


Great, thanks for testing and for providing actual reproducers!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

References:
- [PATCH v1] mm/memory: fix folio_set_dirty() vs. folio_mark_dirty() in zap_pte_range()
  - From: David Hildenbrand
- RE: [PATCH v1] mm/memory: fix folio_set_dirty() vs. folio_mark_dirty() in zap_pte_range()
  - From: Yuezhang.Mo@xxxxxxxx

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/zswap: split zswap rb-tree
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] selftests/mm: hugepage-shm: conform test to TAP format output
Previous by thread: RE: [PATCH v1] mm/memory: fix folio_set_dirty() vs. folio_mark_dirty() in zap_pte_range()
Next by thread: [PATCH v1 00/11] mm/memory: optimize fork() with PTE-mapped THP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API]