Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220426145445.2282274-1-agruenba@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wi7o+fHYBTuCQQdHD112YHQtO21Y3+wxNYypjdo8feKFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU48681X8aUK+g7UUN7q5b6rkVBzTP7h_zbE4XqZYAiw3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjMB1-xCOCBtsSMmQuFV9G+vNyCY1O_LsoqOd=0QS4yYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU5Bag5W2t79+WzUq=NibtEF+7z6=jyNCkLMMp9Yqvpmqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whaz-g_nOOoo8RRiWNjnv2R+h6_xk2F1J4TuSRxk1MtLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU5654k7QBU97g_Ubj8cJEWuA_bXPuXOPpBBYoXVPMJG=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgSYSNc5sF2EVxhjbSc+c4LTs90aYaK2wavNd_m2bUkGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU69E4ke4Xg3zQ2MqjLbfM65D9ZajdY5MRDLN0azZOGmVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whQxvMvty8SjiGMh+gM4VmCYvqn6EAwmrDXJaHT2Aa+UA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wicJdoCjPLu7FhaErr6Z3UaW820U2b+F-8P4qwSFUZ0mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHc6FU7GkXLkns5PONLvsSi6HB+rjaNSyFeQFS034tKL-JueMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wg4ypnZUA5BOHAF1miKvOhW2yQSruuBKNXMDR=dTmp+ww@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wiF8D6Bs2m8y85XpHU__c4XD1yFV9JXx9FuTqoge+-yhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiF8D6Bs2m8y85XpHU__c4XD1yFV9JXx9FuTqoge+-yhg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 19:21:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU5Et7bh7zOQTSqBjmRAdB3Hibk8xwXG_YVs_VRXVh8iFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gfs2 fix
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 7:17 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:09 AM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'll look at that copy_page_to_iter_iovec() some more regardless, but
> > doing that "let's double-check it's not somethign else" would be good.
>
> Oh, and as I do that, it strikes me: What platform do you see the problem on?
>
> Because the code for that function is very different if HIGHMEM is
> enabled, so if you see this on x86-32 but not x86-64, for example,
> that is relevant.
>
> I *assume* nobody uses x86-32 any more, but just checking...

This is on x86_64.

Andreas