From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from madrid.collaboradmins.com (madrid.collaboradmins.com [46.235.227.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD7E21292EA for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706219082; cv=none; b=n8oUQjdKsDB8t5U92uZl2uo0J5J9eyTsIcAO8jpRV0uaxvVcp/fPqHa+lm9sehweOJgJSKsBepgEgmGZxfcc1cRqWhdnyFj6KUKsXK9v0WvAY9DTvRbsNENhN5m7FiRX48HujahoL+03Sb4xDsmHdgKF6tpJwefBwmm+x9ba0eA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706219082; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VKagnVmAZwzDPUwQEySN1O/dZJAvWl37niOmwVB/dyA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:From:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=eEzGXHZPJ8lpNlyYuEWic/n2tZZZSqoV8sJeo9vNtQll52foblPZWSuTJf7Syy2rjrOevje7cSeAlXVbzApAeugUjwcm8QH+JuvMaKF7h+vlIVZ0rDPG8bJBpOC8Pvu6kH1iVWu9jRRHrxXI6lcIMLBqsoRDXg0s0kNUGMg856I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b=zH4YsQQ1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.227.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=collabora.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=collabora.com header.i=@collabora.com header.b="zH4YsQQ1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1706219078; bh=VKagnVmAZwzDPUwQEySN1O/dZJAvWl37niOmwVB/dyA=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=zH4YsQQ1l9xhDsaiFEXIwuiTiRpBtb9WAEHZF0IB1pCL1ARKClVhCLvtpJyejW385 MlZFZt3zOuBKgPCaCvbQqBeL7/fr1NdvMzbmvLXwOHAiMiLpf+t7BMzs0FN3Tp1x75 IZKk9/Q3MJ7nS/GfTLDHT1p0P+VEXeTEgosFRqNr4pNPdD9UedKbdo4BIXNQJ6hlOO ekPlOo1/mAejbQgzUJQP9o0hPQi/9EPAkzgxCWYjhuKgpCjvBaUXJkafrEzi0znmNU pr1RO2ZHuCXoiznbl/hNxf05pxnDwTd4ruetDWaCJCayfu7El6UbOZpD0cmK746ct3 yAH/351PiykNA== Received: from [100.109.49.129] (cola.collaboradmins.com [195.201.22.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dmitry.osipenko) by madrid.collaboradmins.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 647DE37813DA; Thu, 25 Jan 2024 21:44:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 00:44:34 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 17/30] drm/panfrost: Fix the error path in panfrost_mmu_map_fault_addr() Content-Language: en-US From: Dmitry Osipenko To: Steven Price , Boris Brezillon Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@collabora.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, David Airlie , Gerd Hoffmann , Gurchetan Singh , Chia-I Wu , Daniel Vetter , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= , Qiang Yu , Emma Anholt , Melissa Wen References: <20240105184624.508603-1-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com> <20240105184624.508603-18-dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/26/24 00:41, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > On 1/5/24 21:46, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> for (i = page_offset; i < page_offset + NUM_FAULT_PAGES; i++) { >> + /* Can happen if the last fault only partially filled this >> + * section of the pages array before failing. In that case >> + * we skip already filled pages. >> + */ >> + if (pages[i]) >> + continue; >> + >> pages[i] = shmem_read_mapping_page(mapping, i); > > Although, the shmem_read_mapping_page() should return same page if it > was already allocated, isn't it? I.e. there was no bug here and the > fixes/stable tags not needed. Scratch that, I forgot that the patch is about the unbalanced get/put_pages -- Best regards, Dmitry