On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 08:31:56PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:36 PM Wei Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In current implementation, we might re-allocate nd_pfn->pfn_sb.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> nd_dax_probe()
>> nd_pfn->pfn_sb = devm_kzalloc()
>>
>> dax_pmem_probe()
>> nvdimm_setup_pfn()
>> nd_pfn_init()
>> nd_pfn->pfn_sb = devm_kzalloc()
>>
>> This patch checks nd_pfn->pfn_sb before allocating it in nd_pfn_init().
>
>Ugh, this patch is unfortunately uncovering a deeper problem.
>nvdimm_setup_pfn() should not be calling nd_pfn_init(). This
>effectively is always re-initializing the info-block, benign but
>unnecessary. Instead it needs to be using nd_pfn_validate() followed
>by an __nvdimm_setup_pfn() in the dax_pmem_probe() path.
>
>Good find!
So we should fix this like:
dax_pmem_probe()
nd_pfn_validate()
__nvdimm_setup_pfn()
Is my understanding correct?
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
