On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 4:02 AM Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 03:36:48PM -0400, David Hu wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 5:43 AM Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 08:00:12PM +0000, David Hu wrote: > > > > @@ -133,6 +137,11 @@ struct sg_table *dma_buf_phys_vec_to_sgt(struct > > > > dma_buf_attachment *attach, > > > > } > > > > > > > > nents = calc_sg_nents(dma->state, phys_vec, nr_ranges, size); > > > > + if (!nents) { > > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > + goto err_free_state; > > > > + } > > > > > > Technically, this hunk is not necessary, since sg_alloc_table() will > > > return -EINVAL when nents == 0. At least, that is the behavior I relied > > > on. > > > > I originally added this explicit check in v5 to address Jason's > > feedback, and to make the > > failure explicit rather than relying on `sg_alloc_table()` failing > > silently on `nents=0`. > > I prefer explicit checks, but I am not in favor of duplicating them. > Since sg_alloc_table() already validates this condition, we do not need > to repeat the same check in dma-buf. A comment should be sufficient to > inform future reviewers that nents == 0 is already handled. > > Thanks
Hi Leon, Thank you for clarifying this further. Removing the duplication here sounds good to me. I'll drop the hunk, add a comment for posterity noting that `nents = 0` is handled by `sg_alloc_table()`, and send out a v6 shortly. Thanks a bunch, David
