Am 13.05.22 um 12:18 schrieb Charan Teja Kalla:
On 5/13/2022 3:41 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Reported-by: kernel test robot lkp@intel.com
The trest robot did not say that the dmabuf stat name was being duplicated, did it?
It reported a printk warning on V2[1]. Should we remove this on V3?
We only add the kernel test robot is report when it found the underlying problem and not just noted some warning on an intermediate patch version.
@Christian: Could you please drop this tag while merging?
Sure, I don't have much on my plate at the moment. But don't let it become a habit.
Going to push it upstream through drm-misc-fixes now.
Regards, Christian.
[1] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne...
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c index a6fc96e..0ad5039 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c @@ -407,6 +407,7 @@ static inline int is_dma_buf_file(struct file *file) static struct file *dma_buf_getfile(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, int flags) {
- static atomic64_t dmabuf_inode = ATOMIC64_INIT(0); struct file *file; struct inode *inode = alloc_anon_inode(dma_buf_mnt->mnt_sb);
@@ -416,6 +417,13 @@ static struct file *dma_buf_getfile(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, int flags) inode->i_size = dmabuf->size; inode_set_bytes(inode, dmabuf->size);
- /*
* The ->i_ino acquired from get_next_ino() is not unique thus* not suitable for using it as dentry name by dmabuf stats.* Override ->i_ino with the unique and dmabuffs specific* value.*/- inode->i_ino = atomic64_add_return(1, &dmabuf_inode); file = alloc_file_pseudo(inode, dma_buf_mnt, "dmabuf", flags, &dma_buf_fops); if (IS_ERR(file))
-- 2.7.4
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Thanks for the ACK.
--Charan