Hi, On 2025-06-23 17:59:24 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: To Andres Freund > > Ok, so we leave the touching in, but still defend against negative > > status values? > > v2 attached.
How confident are we that this isn't actually because we passed a bogus address to the kernel or such? With this patch, are *any* pages recognized as valid on the machines that triggered the error? I wonder if we ought to report the failures as a separate "numa node" (e.g. NULL as node id) instead ... Greetings, Andres Freund
