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

[Oliver Sang]

hi, Alex,

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:11:31PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 if they are out-of-date branches, we won't send reports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.

got it. thanks a lot for information!
our 'gitmirror' mechanism is not so smart that we still have your branch snapshot
internally...

> 
> 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