[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJyVfWKX2eSMsfrb@black.igk.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:39:09 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Dominique Martinet via B4 Relay <devnull+asmadeus.codewreck.org@...nel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Maximilian Bosch <maximilian@...sch.me>,
Ryan Lahfa <ryan@...fa.xyz>, Christian Theune <ct@...ingcircus.io>,
Arnout Engelen <arnout@...t.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov_iter: iterate_folioq: fix handling of offset >=
folio size
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 02:34:25PM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Nathan Chancellor wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 10:16:33PM -0700:
> > > 1 warning generated.
> >
> > I see this in -next now, should remain be zero initialized or is there
> > some other fix that is needed?
>
> A zero-initialization is fine, I sent a v2 with zero-initialization
> fixed yesterday:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250812-iot_iter_folio-v2-1-f99423309478@codewreck.org
>
> (and I'll send a v3 with the goto replaced with a bigger if later today
> as per David's request)
>
> I assume Andrew will pick it up eventually?
I hope this to happen sooner as it broke my builds too (I always do now `make W=1`
and suggest all developers should follow).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists