Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:52:12PM -0600, Ira Weiny wrote: > > Li Chen wrote:
[snip] > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/nd_virtio.c b/drivers/nvdimm/nd_virtio.c > > > index c3f07be4aa22..827a17fe7c71 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/nd_virtio.c > > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/nd_virtio.c > > > @@ -44,19 +44,24 @@ static int virtio_pmem_flush(struct nd_region > > > *nd_region) > > > unsigned long flags; > > > int err, err1; > > > > > > + might_sleep(); > > > + mutex_lock(&vpmem->flush_lock); > > > > Assuming this does fix a bug I'd rather use guard here. > > Do you, from code review, agree with the logic that > it's racy right now? I do now. I was hoping to understand the test being run. The additional detail that it takes multiple runs helps. > Whether the bug is reproducible isn't really the question. > True. But we should still use guard(). I'll look for v2. Ira
