[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tencent_547137D7C2F3EDBCD52FB12EE2A202EEE307@qq.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:08:16 +0800
From: Yuwen Chen <ywen.chen@...mail.com>
To: bgeffon@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
licayy@...look.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
minchan@...gle.com,
minchan@...nel.org,
richardycc@...gle.com,
senozhatsky@...omium.org,
ywen.chen@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] zram: introduce writeback bio batching support
On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:19:22 -0500, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
- index = pps->index;
zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
/*
* scan_slots() sets ZRAM_PP_SLOT and relases slot lock, so
@@ -775,67 +999,46 @@ static int zram_writeback_slots(struct z
*/
if (!zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_PP_SLOT))
goto next;
- if (zram_read_from_zspool(zram, page, index))
+ if (zram_read_from_zspool(zram, req->page, index))
goto next;
zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
I tested the reorganized patch on my end and found that it didn't work
properly. Currently, it has been found that this index is uninitialized.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists