[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jDuKnDat6keMpz0j-G3P4QTdTLm00+_=LE-GQLMR1x5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:11:03 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "dax: fix NULL pointer in __dax_pmd_fault()"
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Ross Zwisler
<ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> This reverts commit 8346c416d17bf5b4ea1508662959bb62e73fd6a5.
>
> This commit did fix the issue it intended to fix, but it turns out that
> the locking changes introduced by these two commits:
>
> commit 843172978bb9 ("dax: fix race between simultaneous faults")
> commit 46c043ede471 ("mm: take i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX")
>
> had other issues as well, so they need to just be reverted.
Wait, why introduce two points in the kernel history where we have a
known uninitialized variable? I'd say fix up the revert of "mm: take
i_mmap_lock in unmap_mapping_range() for DAX" to address the conflict
with the fix, one less patch and keeps the stability rolling forward.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists