[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgafGgBC9JEu397YxFD8o8qiCZHQS+f5i+BSXOkOFqX3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:35:42 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Avoid live-lock in btrfs fault-in+uaccess loop
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 3:07 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
>
> The series introduces fault_in_subpage_writeable() together with the
> arm64 probing counterpart and the btrfs fix.
Looks fine to me - and I think it can probably go through the arm64
tree since you'd be the only one really testing it anyway.
I assume you checked that btrfs is the only one that uses
fault_in_writeable() in this way? Everybody else updates to the right
byte boundary and retries (or returns immediately)?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists