On Fri Aug 29, 2025 at 9:55 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
> index d6c4dd1194a0..d59ec3baae1d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
> @@ -150,14 +150,22 @@ static void test_prepare(struct kunit *test)
> static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test)
> {
> struct drm_exec_priv *priv = test->priv;
> - struct drm_gem_object gobj1 = { };
> - struct drm_gem_object gobj2 = { };
> - struct drm_gem_object *array[] = { &gobj1, &gobj2 };
> + struct drm_gem_object *gobj1;
> + struct drm_gem_object *gobj2;
> + struct drm_gem_object *array[] = {
> + (gobj1 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)),
> + (gobj2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)),
> + };
Actually, I think this should use kunit_kzmalloc() instead. Unless anyone
disagrees, I'd apply the following hunk when applying the patch.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
index d59ec3baae1d..3a20c788c51f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_exec_test.c
@@ -153,15 +153,15 @@ static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test)
struct drm_gem_object *gobj1;
struct drm_gem_object *gobj2;
struct drm_gem_object *array[] = {
- (gobj1 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)),
- (gobj2 = kzalloc(sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)),
+ (gobj1 = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*gobj1), GFP_KERNEL)),
+ (gobj2 = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*gobj2), GFP_KERNEL)),
};
struct drm_exec exec;
int ret;
if (!gobj1 || !gobj2) {
KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Failed to allocate GEM objects.\n");
- goto out;
+ return;
}
drm_gem_private_object_init(priv->drm, gobj1, PAGE_SIZE);
@@ -176,10 +176,6 @@ static void test_prepare_array(struct kunit *test)
drm_gem_private_object_fini(gobj1);
drm_gem_private_object_fini(gobj2);
-
-out:
- kfree(gobj1);
- kfree(gobj2);
}
static void test_multiple_loops(struct kunit *test)