From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86FADC43464 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E4421D7B for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ABH1vTV5" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 20E4421D7B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3A3226B0037; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 353596B0055; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 268976B005A; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0025.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.25]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119F86B0037 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 20:24:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B26181AEF1E for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77277913524.25.hour03_09034c92712f Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967961804E3A0 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:02 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: hour03_09034c92712f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2217 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from X1 (unknown [67.22.170.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F06D21D20; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 00:24:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1600475041; bh=W6DhjlWf9ksxtATHwmOCHAkaBRTh3bp6O13nj4DoZI4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ABH1vTV5+ENJgE8rzteACQvxRPK/Zyh5HxcBPNwVFzo67gDfp45X4JoVfeiYwRCbb aGghAQsPSoMsN+oqP9EPfsOr0TvUe8924HJWePGxNcRSE2T1j45HjFzyuyAMk1et7I SetD9iakdf9zViZ0UFvCok5b2gv+cbM+bfOTxzso= Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:23:59 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: osalvador@suse.de Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@kernel.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, tony.luck@intel.com, david@redhat.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, zeil@yandex-team.ru, cai@lca.pw, nao.horiguchi@gmail.com, naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] mm,hwpoison: Rework soft offline for in-use pages Message-Id: <20200918172359.e862562a7ad22e92388ce218@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <7e948108488864b6d9131d990d5f6c80@suse.de> References: <20200806184923.7007-1-nao.horiguchi@gmail.com> <20200806184923.7007-9-nao.horiguchi@gmail.com> <7e948108488864b6d9131d990d5f6c80@suse.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 09:58:22 +0200 osalvador@suse.de wrote: > I just found out yesterday that the patchset Naoya sent has diverged > from mine in some aspects that lead to some bugs [1]. > This was due to a misunderstanding so no blame here. > So, patch#8 and patch#9 need a little tweak [2]. > > I was wondering what do you prefer? Well. I (and I suspect the rest of the world) have lost track of what's going on here. So please let's have a full resend of the whole series?