On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 12:45:30AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 8:14 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado > <nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 06:51:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 6:46 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 5:37 PM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado > > > > <nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:44:31PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > > > > applying either of these patches causes issues. See the traces for each one > > > > > below. This was tested on top of next-20240531, which works fine. > > > > > > > > Oh, thank you very much for prompt testing! Can you test just the > > > > second one without the revert? > > > > > > Ah, you wrote "either", so it seems you have tried that already. > > > > Yes exactly. Both patches are troublesome. Patch 2 causes a slightly different > > null pointer dereference, in "dcache_clean_poc+0x20/0x38", as the stack trace I > > posted shows. > > I have sent a new series where the last patch has a massive rework of > the cur_msg_mapped flag. Would be nice to see if it passes your tests. > The main idea there is to actually move to per transfer flag(s) from > per message one. Ah great, I really felt that the flag should've been per transfer, so thank you for making that change. I'll do some testing on Monday. Thanks, Nícolas