Re: [next] [dragonboard 410c] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00000000007c4240

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 10/22/21 05:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:51:20 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
>> >> Then we have to figure out how to order a fix between DRM and mmotm...
>> > 
>> > That is the question! The problem exists only in the merge of the
>> > two. On current DRM side stack_depot_init() exists but it's __init and
>> > does not look safe to call multiple times. And obviously my changes
>> > don't exist at all in mmotm.
>> > 
>> > I guess one (admittedly hackish) option is to first add a patch in
>> > drm-next (or drm-misc-next) that makes it safe to call
>> > stack_depot_init() multiple times in non-init context. It would be
>> > dropped in favour of your changes once the trees get merged together.
>> > 
>> > Or is there some way for __drm_stack_depot_init() to detect whether it
>> > should call stack_depot_init() or not, i.e. whether your changes are
>> > there or not?
>> 
>> Let's try the easiest approach first. AFAIK mmotm series is now split to
>> pre-next and post-next part
> 
> It has been this way for many years!

Aha, great. Looks like I misinterpreted few months ago the thread about
adding folio tree to next.

>> and moving my patch
>> lib-stackdepot-allow-optional-init-and-stack_table-allocation-by-kvmalloc.patch
>> with the following fixup to the post-next part should solve this. Would that
>> work, Andrew? Thanks.
> 
> For this reason.  No probs, thanks.

Thanks!

> I merge up the post-linux-next parts late in the merge window.  I do
> need to manually check that the prerequisites are in mainline, because
> sometimes the patches apply OK but don't make sense.
>