[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <270BD884-EF31-491C-9339-5D9ADF3BC694@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 14:52:07 +0800
From: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>,
Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@...e.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in commit aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved
badblock handling
> 2023年12月23日 02:31,Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> 写道:
>
> Coly,
>
> Yesterday I noticed that a few of our nvdimm tests were failing. I bisected
> the problem to the following commit.
>
> aa511ff8218b ("badblocks: switch to the improved badblock handling code")
>
> Reverting this patch fixed our tests.
>
> I've also dug into the code a bit and I believe the algorithm for
> badblocks_check() is broken (not yet sure about the other calls). At the
> very least I see the bb->p pointer being indexed with '-1'. :-(
>
> I did notice that this work was due to a bug report in badblock_set().
> Therefore, I'm not sure of that severity of that fix is vs a revert. But
> at this point I'm not seeing an easy fix so I'm in favor of a revert.
Hi Ira,
Thanks for the information reported. Let me look into the situation now.
Coly Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists