Thanks Christian! size_t is a nice fit. It removes the negative-input concern Philipp raised in one shot. Looking forward to seeing the cleanup land.
Regards, Baineng
Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com 于2026年6月30日周二 16:29写道：
On 6/30/26 08:04, Baineng Shou wrote:
Add a KUnit case verifying that dma_fence_dedup_array() returns 0, not 1, when called with num_fences == 0. This locks down the contract documented in the kernel-doc and prevents a regression of commit 77a9298741f8 ("dma-fence: Make dma_fence_dedup_array() robust against 0-count input").
Suggested-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Signed-off-by: Baineng Shou shoubaineng@gmail.com
Reviewed-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com
Going to push this to drm-misc-next later today. I also pinged our intern to write a cleanup patch whic consistently use size_t for the number of array elements in the code.
Thanks, Christian.
drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c
b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c
index 4e7ee25372ba..72dea6091d58 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c @@ -370,6 +370,15 @@ static void test_unwrap_merge_seqno(struct kunit
*test)
dma_fence_put(f1);}
+static void test_dedup_empty(struct kunit *test) +{
struct dma_fence *fence[1] = { NULL };int ret;ret = dma_fence_dedup_array(fence, 0);KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);+}
static void test_unwrap_merge_order(struct kunit *test) { struct dma_fence *fence, *f1, *f2, *a1, *a2, *c1, *c2; @@ -595,6 +604,7 @@ static struct kunit_case dma_fence_unwrap_cases[] = { KUNIT_CASE(test_unwrap_merge_order), KUNIT_CASE(test_unwrap_merge_complex), KUNIT_CASE(test_unwrap_merge_complex_seqno),
KUNIT_CASE(test_dedup_empty), {}};