Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
On 2017/5/2 17:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 02-05-17 16:52:00, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>> On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address 0x6c800 Because this

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
On 2017/5/2 17:16, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 02-05-17 16:52:00, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: >> >>> On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address 0x6c800 Because this

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 02-05-17 16:52:00, Xishi Qiu wrote: > On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: > >> Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address > >> 0x6c800 > >> Because this physical address is invalid, and

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 02-05-17 16:52:00, Xishi Qiu wrote: > On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: > >> Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address > >> 0x6c800 > >> Because this physical address is invalid, and

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address >> 0x6c800 >> Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() >> always return 1, so it causes crash. >>

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
On 2017/5/2 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address >> 0x6c800 >> Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() >> always return 1, so it causes crash. >>

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: > Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address > 0x6c800 > Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() > always return 1, so it causes crash. > > My question is that should the user assure

Re: [RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Michal Hocko
On Tue 02-05-17 15:59:23, Xishi Qiu wrote: > Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address > 0x6c800 > Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() > always return 1, so it causes crash. > > My question is that should the user assure

[RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address 0x6c800 Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() always return 1, so it causes crash. My question is that should the user assure the physical address is valid? ... [ 169.147578] ?

[RFC] dev/mem: "memtester -p 0x6c80000000000 10G" cause crash

2017-05-02 Thread Xishi Qiu
Hi, I use "memtester -p 0x6c800 10G" to test physical address 0x6c800 Because this physical address is invalid, and valid_mmap_phys_addr_range() always return 1, so it causes crash. My question is that should the user assure the physical address is valid? ... [ 169.147578] ?