[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170411135820.1e6cf0834243ba1e812165e9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:58:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@...il.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/dax: Changing RC value
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:56:45 +0530 Pushkar Jambhlekar <pushkar.iit@...il.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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists