On 5/13/2022 3:41 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> > The trest robot did not say that the dmabuf stat name was being > duplicated, did it? >
It reported a printk warning on V2[1]. Should we remove this on V3? @Christian: Could you please drop this tag while merging? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202205110511.e0d8txxc-...@intel.com/ >> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >> index a6fc96e..0ad5039 100644 >> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c >> @@ -407,6 +407,7 @@ static inline int is_dma_buf_file(struct file *file) >> >> static struct file *dma_buf_getfile(struct dma_buf *dmabuf, int flags) >> { >> + static atomic64_t dmabuf_inode = ATOMIC64_INIT(0); >> struct file *file; >> struct inode *inode = alloc_anon_inode(dma_buf_mnt->mnt_sb); >> >> @@ -416,6 +417,13 @@ static struct file *dma_buf_getfile(struct dma_buf >> *dmabuf, int flags) >> inode->i_size = dmabuf->size; >> inode_set_bytes(inode, dmabuf->size); >> >> + /* >> + * The ->i_ino acquired from get_next_ino() is not unique thus >> + * not suitable for using it as dentry name by dmabuf stats. >> + * Override ->i_ino with the unique and dmabuffs specific >> + * value. >> + */ >> + inode->i_ino = atomic64_add_return(1, &dmabuf_inode); >> file = alloc_file_pseudo(inode, dma_buf_mnt, "dmabuf", >> flags, &dma_buf_fops); >> if (IS_ERR(file)) >> -- >> 2.7.4 >> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> Thanks for the ACK. --Charan
