On 16/03/22 5:01 pm, Matthew Auld wrote: > On 16/03/2022 06:34, Arunpravin Paneer Selvam wrote: >> handle a situation in the condition order-- == min_order, >> when order = 0 and min_order = 0, leading to order = -1, >> it now won't exit the loop. To avoid this problem, >> added a order check in the same condition, (i.e) >> when order is 0, we return -ENOSPC >> >> v2: use full name in email program and in Signed-off tag >> >> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin Paneer Selvam <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> index 72f52f293249..5ab66aaf2bbd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_buddy.c >> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ int drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(struct drm_buddy *mm, >> if (!IS_ERR(block)) >> break; >> >> - if (order-- == min_order) { >> + if (!order || order-- == min_order) { > > It shouldn't be possible to enter an infinite loop here, without first > tripping up the BUG_ON(order < min_order) further up, and for that, as > we discussed here[1], it sounded like the conclusion was to rather add a > simple check somewhere in drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() to reject any size > not aligned to the min_page_size? I sent a patch adding a check to reject any size not aligned to the min_page_size. Please review > > [1] https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.freedesktop.org%2Fpatch%2F477414%2F%3Fseries%3D101108%26rev%3D1&data=04%7C01%7CArunpravin.PaneerSelvam%40amd.com%7C51e60632b18847b73da808da074085d6%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637830270945242954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wVVqKzjUoL6jL00uxXiXZz7%2FzJQeuC%2BuBdB8hPKqQao%3D&reserved=0 > >> err = -ENOSPC; >> goto err_free; >> } >> >> base-commit: 3bd60c0259406c5ca3ce5cdc958fb910ad4b8175