On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 12:16:24PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 06.12.21 um 11:42 schrieb Dan Carpenter: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:52:55AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > > GEM helper libraries use struct drm_driver.gem_create_object to let > > > drivers override GEM object allocation. On failure, the call returns > > > NULL. > > > > > > Change the semantics to make the calls return a pointer-encoded error. > > > This aligns the callback with its callers. Fixes the ingenic driver, > > > which already returns an error pointer. > > > > > > Also update the callers to handle the involved types more strictly. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > There is an alternative patch at [1] that updates the value returned > > > by ingenics' gem_create_object to NULL. Fixing the interface to return > > > an errno code is more consistent with the rest of the GEM functions. > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20211118111522.GD1147@kili/ > > > > My fix was already applied and backported to -stable etc... Your > > patch is not developed against a current tree so you broke it. > > Do you have a specific link? I just checked the stable tree at [1] and there > no trace of your patch. It's in 5.15.6 and probably all the other supported -stable trees. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_bo.c?h=v5.15.6#n387 > > Patches for DRM should go through through DRM trees; drm-misc-fixes in this > case. Exceptions should at least be announce on dri-devel. Neither is the > case here. Yeah. That's a good question. I don't know, because I just work against linux-next... regards, dan carpenter
