Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] vfs: build failure due to missing init_dma_buf_io_ctx and iov_iter_is_dmabuf_map definitions --
commit d99a726724959c24584b1b7d60b6cbfd1f565d00 Author: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> block: add dma-buf support for raw bdev This commit adds a proxy implementation of init_dma_buf_io_ctx() that forwards the call to a new block_device_operations operation. It also rejects dma-buf backed iterators for buffered IO. > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > index 40a8ceeec1940..79aee87c66010 100644 > --- a/block/fops.c > +++ b/block/fops.c > @@ -731,6 +731,9 @@ blkdev_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter > *from) > > static ssize_t blkdev_buffered_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter > *from) > { > + if (unlikely(iov_iter_is_dmabuf_map(from))) [Severity: Low] Is this regression caused by a missing prerequisite patch? The function iov_iter_is_dmabuf_map() appears to be undeclared in the kernel headers, which results in an implicit declaration error during the build. > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > + > return iomap_file_buffered_write(iocb, from, &blkdev_iomap_ops, NULL, > NULL); > } [ ... ] > @@ -977,6 +998,7 @@ const struct file_operations def_blk_fops = { > .fallocate = blkdev_fallocate, > .uring_cmd = blkdev_uring_cmd, > .fop_flags = FOP_BUFFER_RASYNC | FOP_DONTCACHE, > + .init_dma_buf_io_ctx = blkdev_init_dma_buf_io_ctx, [Severity: Low] Does struct file_operations include init_dma_buf_io_ctx in this tree? It seems this member does not exist, which causes a build regression due to the initialization of a non-existent member. > }; > > static __init int blkdev_init(void) -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=3
