On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 02:15:44PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > hwpoison is per page not per file. That's intrinsic to, well, hardware > poison, it affects an entire page (I'd love to support sub-page poison, > but not enough to spend my time working on memory-poison.c). > > In general, I think there's a lack of understanding of hwpoison, and > I include myself in that. Mostly I blame Intel for this; limiting the > hardware support to the higher end machines means that most of us just > don't care about it. > > Why even bother checking for hwpoison in xfiles? If you have flaky > hardware, well, maybe there's a reason you're having to fsck, and crashing > during a fsck might encourage the user to replace their hardware with > stuff that works. But the sentence is stale actually - we're using folios now after Darrick coded up a helper check all the hwpoison cases and others. I should have removed it from the commit log. Crashing is never a good idea I think if we can easily avoid it. Note that I still find the difference in hwpoison checking in shmem vs filemap rather confusing.
