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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Baineng Shou <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]> > > 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), > > {} > > }; > > > >
