Hi Huan,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on 033a4691702cdca3a613256b0623b8eeacb4985e]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Huan-Yang/udmabuf-cancel-mma…
base: 033a4691702cdca3a613256b0623b8eeacb4985e
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240813090518.3252469-6-link%40vivo.com
patch subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] udmabuf: remove udmabuf_folio
config: s390-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240816/202408162012.cL9pnFSm-lkp@…)
compiler: s390-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240816/202408162012.cL9pnFSm-lkp@…)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202408162012.cL9pnFSm-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c:175: warning: Function parameter or struct member 'ubuf' not described in 'unpin_all_folios'
vim +175 drivers/dma-buf/udmabuf.c
17a7ce20349045 Gurchetan Singh 2019-12-02 165
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 166 /**
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 167 * unpin_all_folios: unpin each folio we pinned in create
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 168 * The udmabuf set all folio in folios and pinned it, but for large folio,
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 169 * We may have only used a small portion of the physical in the folio.
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 170 * we will repeatedly, sequentially set the folio into the array to ensure
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 171 * that the offset can index the correct folio at the corresponding index.
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 172 * Hence, we only need to unpin the first iterred folio.
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 173 */
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 174 static void unpin_all_folios(struct udmabuf *ubuf)
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 @175 {
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 176 pgoff_t pg;
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 177 struct folio *last = NULL;
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 178
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 179 for (pg = 0; pg < ubuf->pagecount; pg++) {
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 180 struct folio *tmp = ubuf->folios[pg];
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 181
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 182 if (tmp == last)
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 183 continue;
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 184
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 185 last = tmp;
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 186 unpin_folio(tmp);
d934739404652b Huan Yang 2024-08-13 187 }
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 188 }
c6a3194c05e7e6 Vivek Kasireddy 2024-06-23 189
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 10:23:12AM +0200, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> Simple gentle ping, the serie seems ready to be applied.
Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review. People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review. If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.
Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.
On 12/08/2024 11:02, Hui-Ping Chen wrote:
>
>
>>> +
>>> + nand-ecc-step-size:
>>> + enum: [512, 1024]
>> No defaults? So is this required?
>
> This is required, but I will also add a default.
If this is required and should be in required: list. Default does not
make sense then... it contradicts the point of being required.
>
>
>
>>> +
>>> + nand-ecc-strength:
>>> + enum: [8, 12, 24]
>> No defaults? So is this required?
>
> This is required, but I will also add a default.
Ditto
Best regards,
Krzysztof