Re: [alexshi:mmunstable2] 934c05f8c5: BUG:unable_to_handle_page_fault_for_address

[Alex Shi]

On 7/25/24 9:55 PM, Oliver Sang wrote:
> hi, Alex,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:23:00PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/23/24 11:22 AM, Oliver Sang wrote:
>>> hi, Alex,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 09:58:25AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 7/23/24 9:05 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> hi, Alex Shi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we noticed there is a mmunstable3 branch now, but there is no same title patch
>>>>> there. not sure if this report is still useful, below report just FYI.
>>>> Hi Oliver,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot for your testing and founding on my unreleased code branch!
>>>> The problem should be resolved on my latest code yesterday.
>>>> But multiple archs maybe still are fragile in the branch. Are there bootable in virtual machine, like arm, s390, etc?
>>> we did boot test in vm, but only for x86_64 or i386.
>>>
>>> you may notice we also send another report
>>> "[alexshi:mmunstable3] [mm/memory]  f6ba7ce983: kernel_BUG_at_mm/page_alloc.c"
>>
>> this problem was fixed too. Anyway thanks a lot notice me of this.
> 
> thanks a lot for information! just was wondering which branch contains the fixes?
> 
> I ask this because we still have some bisect results pointing the commits in
>   mmunstable
>   mmunstable2
>   mmunstable3
> branches in https://github.com/alexshi/linux.git
> 
> are they still useful? if they are out-of-date branches, we won't send reports
> to you upon them. thanks

Hi Olive,

Sorry for response late, I have some issue to deal with lately. 
The mmunstable2/3 are removed a couple days ago.

Thanks again for your great job!

Alex
> 
>>
>>>
>>> for both commit, we made some further check and cofirmed they cannot boot
>>> successfully on both vm/bm, again, we only test x86_64/i386 for now.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the info!
>>
>> Alex