On Thu 25-04-19 17:33:04, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 AM Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 24-04-19 11:13:48, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 05:33:04PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 AM Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > We also call vmf_insert_pfn_pmd() in dax_insert_pfn_mkwrite() -- does
> > > > that need to change too?
> > >
> > > It wasn't clear to me that it was a problem. I think that one
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 AM Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Wed 24-04-19 11:13:48, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
>
On Wed 24-04-19 11:13:48, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
> > > vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 6:37 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
>
> On 4/24/19 11:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
>
On 4/24/19 11:43 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
the only
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
> > vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
> > the only change needed is the following,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:13:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I think unaligned addresses have always been passed to
> vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(), but nothing cared until this patch. I *think*
> the only change needed is the following, thoughts?
>
> diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> index
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:51 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
wrote:
>
> With some architectures like ppc64, set_pmd_at() cannot cope with
> a situation where there is already some (different) valid entry present.
>
> Use pmdp_set_access_flags() instead to modify the pfn which is built to
> deal with modifying
Sasha Levin writes:
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.5, v4.19.32, v4.14.109,
> v4.9.166,
Hi,
[This is an automated email]
This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
The bot has tested the following trees: v5.0.5, v4.19.32, v4.14.109, v4.9.166,
v4.4.177, v3.18.137.
v5.0.5: Build OK!
On Tue 02-04-19 17:21:25, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> With some architectures like ppc64, set_pmd_at() cannot cope with
> a situation where there is already some (different) valid entry present.
>
> Use pmdp_set_access_flags() instead to modify the pfn which is built to
> deal with modifying
With some architectures like ppc64, set_pmd_at() cannot cope with
a situation where there is already some (different) valid entry present.
Use pmdp_set_access_flags() instead to modify the pfn which is built to
deal with modifying existing PMD entries.
This is similar to
commit cae85cb8add3
13 matches
Mail list logo
