On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 18:39 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Vishal Verma <[email protected] > om> wrote: > > A leftover from the 'bandaid' fix that disabled BTT error clearing > > in > > rw_bytes resulted in an incorrect check. After we converted these > > checks > > over to use the NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC flag, the ndns->claim check was > > both > > redundant, and incorrect. Remove it. > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang <[email protected]> > > Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/nvdimm/claim.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > index 8d23f68..f8ad92b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/claim.c > > @@ -289,8 +289,7 @@ static int nsio_rw_bytes(struct > > nd_namespace_common *ndns, > > * work around this collision. > > */ > > if (IS_ALIGNED(offset, 512) && IS_ALIGNED(size, > > 512) > > - && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC) > > - && !ndns->claim) { > > + && !(flags & NVDIMM_IO_ATOMIC)) { > > Should this also go to -stable otherwise we won't clear errors on > pmem > devices claimed by 'pfn' instances, right?
Yes I think it should.. Should I just resend with stable CC'd? > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
