Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 08:25:09 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shan.gavin@gmail.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Reject invalid NUMA option
Message-ID: <20200428072509.GA4049@willie-the-truck>
References: <20200424045314.16017-1-gshan@redhat.com>
 <20200424101132.GC1167@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
 <f83c0ce1-b1b2-31f4-60c8-15567b87a8ff@redhat.com>
 <20200427225406.7cacc796@gandalf.local.home>
 <20200427225944.185d4431@gandalf.local.home>
 <20200427230920.3d606a2e@gandalf.local.home>
 <7e85ea83-de5f-c789-2e3c-e468a50ed4bd@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7e85ea83-de5f-c789-2e3c-e468a50ed4bd@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:35:20PM +1000, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 4/28/20 1:09 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > Could this be a bug in the implementation of strncmp() in
> > arch/arm64/lib/strncmp.S. As I don't know arm64 assembly, I have no idea
> > what it is trying to do.
> > 
> > But strncmp("o","off",3) returning zero *is* a bug.
> > 
> 
> I think it's false alarm. The patch has been in my local repo for a while.
> I checked out 5.7.rc3 and tried passing "numa=o" to the kernel, @numa_off
> is unchanged and its value is false. I also check the return value from
> strncmp() as below, it's correct. Nothing is broken. I should have retested
> before posting it. Sorry for the noise. Please ignore the crap patch :)

Hmm, it's still worrying that you had that patch kicking around though, as
it sounds like it /used/ to be broken. Would you be able to test the LTS
kernels (5.4, 4.19, 4.14, 4.9, 4.4) to check that we're not missing a
backport, please? Sorry to be a pain, but I'd like to get to the bottom of
this!

Thanks,

Will