On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 07:38 -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 04:23:29PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:04:10AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:53:44PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > 3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > commit 9cc3a5bd40067b9a0fbd49199d0780463fc2140f upstream.
> > > >
> > > > With applying the previous patch "hugetlbfs: stop setting VM_DONTDUMP in
> > > > initializing vma(VM_HUGETLB)" to reenable hugepage coredump, if a memory
> > > > error happens on a hugepage and the affected processes try to access the
> > > > error hugepage, we hit VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&page->_count) <= 0) in
> > > > get_page().
> > >
> > > Is this required? You didn't apply the previous patch referred to
> > > above (commit a2fce9143057) to 3.4.y or 3.0.y since it claimed to fix
> > > a regression in 3.7 (commit 314e51b9851b 'mm: kill vma flag VM_RESERVED
> > > and mm->reserved_vm counter').
> > >
> > > I'm not saying it *isn't* required, mind.
> >
> > Yeah, but I went off of the stable: marking in this patch, which said:
> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2.6.34+?]
> >
> >
> > Naoya, any chance you could clear this up? Is this needed for kernels
> > older than 3.7?
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Kernels older than 3.7 need this patch.
>
> We need this patch whenever hugepage coredump is enabled.
> It was enabled before commit 314e51b9851b (== v3.6-8946-g314e51b),
> but the commit disabled it accidentally, so commit a2fce914305
> (== v3.9-rc7-56-ga2fce91) reenabled it.
Thanks.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Klipstein's 4th Law of Prototyping and Production:
A fail-safe circuit will destroy others.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part