On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
>implications to memory allocation.
>
>Clarify this situation to help anyone that reads through this
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:45:46PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:30 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> May I ask a question about the purpose to create these three device here?
>>
>> I see nd_pfn_create() doesn't allocate pfn_sb here, and the probe on these
>> devices failed. Conf
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:47 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:29:08PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM Wei Yang
> >wrote:
> >[..]
> >> >@@ -706,6 +711,22 @@ static int nd_pfn_init(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn)
> >> > sig = DAX_SIG;
> >> >
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:29:08PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>[..]
>> >@@ -706,6 +711,22 @@ static int nd_pfn_init(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn)
>> > sig = DAX_SIG;
>> > else
>> > sig = PFN_SIG;
>> >+
>> >+ /*
>> >+
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:30 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:51:02PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
> >>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:51:02PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
>>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
>>implications to memory allocation.
>>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM Wei Yang wrote:
[..]
> >@@ -706,6 +711,22 @@ static int nd_pfn_init(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn)
> > sig = DAX_SIG;
> > else
> > sig = PFN_SIG;
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * Check for an existing 'pfn' superblock before writing a new
> >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
>implications to memory allocation.
>
>Clarify this situation to help anyone that reads through this
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 02:34:06PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:57 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:04:40AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:51 PM Wei Yang
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan William
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:57 PM Wei Yang wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:04:40AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:51 PM Wei Yang
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >[..]
> >> Also, I have one confusion about your saying:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:04:40AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:51 PM Wei Yang
>wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>[..]
>> Also, I have one confusion about your saying: two probes.
>>
>> If the two probes are:
>>
>> * for dax%d.%
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:51 PM Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
[..]
> Also, I have one confusion about your saying: two probes.
>
> If the two probes are:
>
> * for dax%d.%d: 1. nd_dax_probe 2. dax_pmem_probe
> * for pfn%d.%d: 1. nd_pfn_pro
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 04:47:23PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
>nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
>implications to memory allocation.
>
>Clarify this situation to help anyone that reads through this
In recent days, 2 engineers, including the original author of
nd_pfn_init(), overlooked the internal call to nd_pfn_validate() and the
implications to memory allocation.
Clarify this situation to help anyone that reads through this code in
the future.
Reported-by: Wei Yang
Signed-off-by: Dan Wil
14 matches
Mail list logo
