Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1621612
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/dax: Changing RC value |
| Date | 2017-04-11 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tvb3k-3yo-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tuWxj-2Jg-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuWxk-2Jg-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:56:45 +0530 Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@gmail.com> wrote: > Changing rc value from VM_FAULT_FALLBACK to VM_FAULT_SIGBUS for an unknown / unsupported fault size. > > ... > > --- a/drivers/dax/dax.c > +++ b/drivers/dax/dax.c > @@ -590,7 +590,7 @@ static int dax_dev_huge_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf, > rc = __dax_dev_pud_fault(dax_dev, vmf); > break; > default: > - rc = VM_FAULT_FALLBACK; > + rc = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS; > } > rcu_read_unlock(); The change seems to make sense but more info would be helpful. What is wrong with the current code? ie, what goes wrong if we return VM_FAULT_FALLBACK here?
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 1/2] drivers/dax: Avoiding potential deadlock Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:30 +0200
[PATCH 2/2] drivers/dax: Changing RC value Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 07:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/dax: Changing RC value Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-04-11 23:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/dax: Changing RC value Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-04-12 18:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/dax: Avoiding potential deadlock Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2017-04-11 18:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/dax: Avoiding potential deadlock Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 06:20 +0200
csiph-web