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;
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 20:32:38 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>
Cc:     dan.j.williams@intel.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com,
        dave.jiang@intel.com, ira.weiny@intel.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        brauner@kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dax: enable dax fault handler to report VM_FAULT_HWPOISON
Message-ID: <ZC8eVmF7YdBsDmc4@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230406175556.452442-1-jane.chu@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230406175556.452442-1-jane.chu@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:55:56AM -0600, Jane Chu wrote:
>  static vm_fault_t dax_fault_return(int error)
>  {
>  	if (error == 0)
>  		return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> -	return vmf_error(error);
> +	else if (error == -ENOMEM)
> +		return VM_FAULT_OOM;
> +	else if (error == -EHWPOISON)
> +		return VM_FAULT_HWPOISON;
> +	return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>  }

Why would we want to handle it here instead of changing vmf_error()?