Hi,
On 2025-06-23 17:59:24 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: To Andres Freund
> > Ok, so we leave the touching in, but still defend against negative
> > status values?
>
> v2 attached.
How confident are we that this isn't actually because we passed a bogus
address to the kernel or such? With this patch, are *any* pages recognized as
valid on the machines that triggered the error?
I wonder if we ought to report the failures as a separate "numa node"
(e.g. NULL as node id) instead ...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
