6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com
commit 2b95a7db6e0f75587bffddbb490399cbb87e4985 upstream.
Even the kerneldoc says that with a zero timeout the function should not wait for anything, but still return 1 to indicate that the fences are signaled now.
Unfortunately that isn't what was implemented, instead of only returning 1 we also waited for at least one jiffies.
Fix that by adjusting the handling to what the function is actually documented to do.
v2: improve code readability
Reported-by: Marek Olšák marek.olsak@amd.com Reported-by: Lucas Stach l.stach@pengutronix.de Signed-off-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach l.stach@pengutronix.de Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250129105841.1806-1-christian.koenig@amd.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c @@ -678,11 +678,13 @@ long dma_resv_wait_timeout(struct dma_re dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, obj, usage); dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
- ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, ret); - if (ret <= 0) { - dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor); - return ret; - } + ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, timeout); + if (ret <= 0) + break; + + /* Even for zero timeout the return value is 1 */ + if (timeout) + timeout = ret; } dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);