Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] libnvdimm/pfn: Fix 'start_pad' implementation
References: <155000668075.348031.9371497273408112600.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
        <155000671719.348031.2347363160141119237.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
        <x49ftsgsnzp.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
        <CAPcyv4h9s1jYROGqkMfKk0MNBUedP=vQ1nJObLRwFiTB405nOg@mail.gmail.com>
        <x49imxbx22d.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
        <CAPcyv4jweuVTm6D2OTaAMGvUXfxqZMDPfaASJ=QL9=8SdGUZqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 12:21:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4jweuVTm6D2OTaAMGvUXfxqZMDPfaASJ=QL9=8SdGUZqg@mail.gmail.com>
        (Dan Williams's message of "Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:12:37 -0800")
Message-ID: <x49a7inwxga.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

>> Great!  Now let's create another one.
>>
>> # ndctl create-namespace -m fsdax -s 132m
>> libndctl: ndctl_pfn_enable: pfn1.1: failed to enable
>>   Error: namespace1.2: failed to enable
>>
>> failed to create namespace: No such device or address
>>
>> (along with a kernel warning spew)
>
> I assume you're seeing this on the libnvdimm-pending branch?

Yes, but also on linus' master branch.  Things have been operating in
this manner for some time.

>> I understand the desire for expediency.  At some point, though, we have
>> to address the root of the problem.
>
> Well, you've defibrillated me back to reality. We've suffered the
> incomplete broken hacks for 2 years, what's another 10 weeks? I'll
> dust off the sub-section patches and take another run at it.

OK, thanks.  Let me know if I can help at all.

Cheers,
Jeff