On Fri Aug 29, 2025 at 9:55 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c > index d6c4dd1194a0..d59ec3baae1d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c > @@ -150,14 +150,22 @@ static void test_prepare(struct kunit *test) > static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test) > { > struct drm_exec_priv *priv = test->priv; > - struct drm_gem_object gobj1 = { }; > - struct drm_gem_object gobj2 = { }; > - struct drm_gem_object *array[] = { &gobj1, &gobj2 }; > + struct drm_gem_object *gobj1; > + struct drm_gem_object *gobj2; > + struct drm_gem_object *array[] = { > + (gobj1 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)), > + (gobj2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)), > + };
Actually, I think this should use kunit_kzmalloc() instead. Unless anyone disagrees, I'd apply the following hunk when applying the patch. diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c index d59ec3baae1d..3a20c788c51f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c @@ -153,15 +153,15 @@ static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test) struct drm_gem_object *gobj1; struct drm_gem_object *gobj2; struct drm_gem_object *array[] = { - (gobj1 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)), - (gobj2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)), + (gobj1 = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)), + (gobj2 = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)), }; struct drm_exec exec; int ret; if (!gobj1 || !gobj2) { KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate GEM objects.\n"); - goto out; + return; } drm_gem_private_object_init(priv->drm, gobj1, PAGE_SIZE); @@ -176,10 +176,6 @@ static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test) drm_gem_private_object_fini(gobj1); drm_gem_private_object_fini(gobj2); - -out: - kfree(gobj1); - kfree(gobj2); } static void test_multiple_loops(struct kunit *test)