On 1/3/20 7:56 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:45 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:29:56PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:25 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:03 PM Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 03:42, Greg Kroah-Hartman >>>>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> -ENOENT is what you get when hugetlbfs is not mounted, so this hints to >>>> >>>> 8fc312b32b2 mm/hugetlbfs: fix error handling when setting up mounts >>>> >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/commit/?h=linux-5.4.y&id=3f549fb42a39bea3b29c0fc12afee53c4a01bec9 >>> >>> I see that Mike Kravetz suggested not putting this patch into stable in >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/befca227-cb8a-8f47-617d-e3bf9972bfec@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> but it was picked through the autosel mechanism later. >> >> So does that mean that Linus's tree shows this LTP failure as well? > > Yes, according to > https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-mainline-oe/tests/ltp-syscalls-tests/memfd_create04 > mainline has the same testcase failure, it started happening between > v5.4-10135-gc3bfc5dd73c6 and v5.4-10271-g596cf45cbf6e, when the patch > was originally merged into 5.5-rc1. > >> This does seem to fix a real issue, as shown by the LTP test noticing >> it, so should the error code value be fixed in Linus's tree? > > No idea what to conclude from the testcase failure, let's see if Mike has > any suggestions. > Thanks for isolating to this patch! There are dependencies between arch specific code and arch independent code during the setup of hugetlb sizes/mounts. Let me take a closer look at the arm64 code and get access to a system for debug. -- Mike Kravetz
