On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:56:20AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024, Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > use ATOMIC64_INIT() not ATOMIC_INIT() for atomic64_t
> >
> > Fixes: 3f09a0cd4ea3 ("drm: Add common fdinfo helper")
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Gray <jsg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
This patch didn't get merged. Should I resend it?
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c
> > index 446458aca8e9..d3b10dd91584 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_file.c
> > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ bool drm_dev_needs_global_mutex(struct drm_device *dev)
> > */
> > struct drm_file *drm_file_alloc(struct drm_minor *minor)
> > {
> > - static atomic64_t ident = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
> > + static atomic64_t ident = ATOMIC64_INIT(0);
>
> I think we should probably redefine both ATOMIC_INIT and ATOMIC64_INIT
> to cast the result to the correct type to avoid this problem once and
> for all.
>
> If we had
>
> #define ATOMIC_INIT(i) (atomic_t){ (i) }
>
> and
>
> #define ATOMIC64_INIT(i) (atomic64_t){ (i) }
>
> we'd get a build failure using them incorrectly.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
> > struct drm_device *dev = minor->dev;
> > struct drm_file *file;
> > int ret;
>
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel
>
