From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751244AbbG0HHQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:07:16 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:34781 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750741AbbG0HHO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:07:14 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:07:09 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 PATCH 8/9] hugetlbfs: add hugetlbfs_fallocate()
Message-ID: <20150727070709.GA11317@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1435019919-29225-1-git-send-email-mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
 <1435019919-29225-9-git-send-email-mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
 <20150724062533.GA4622@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <55B2655B.4040001@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55B2655B.4040001@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri 24-07-15 09:18:35, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/23/2015 11:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >I hope this is the current version of the pathc - I somehow got lost in
> >last submissions where the discussion happens in v4 thread. This version
> >seems to have the same issue:
> 
> Yes, Michal this issue exists in the version put into mmotm and was
> noticed by kbuild test robot and Stephen in linux-next build.
> 
> Your patch below is the most obvious.  Thanks!  However, is this
> the preferred method of handling this type of issue?  Is it
> preferred to create wrappers for the code which handles numa
> policy?

Yes that would be preferable. My "work around" was just to make my git
mirror of mmotm compilable. I am not sure whether Andrew picked my patch
but it will certainly get replaced by a cleaner version.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs