Re: [PATCH v2] gpu: Fix uninitialized buddy for built-in drivers

[Koen Koning <koen.koning@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2026-02-19 at 13:56 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 1:44 PM CET, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > On 19/02/2026 11:14, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > However, I think it was never meant to rely on a build system
> > > implementation
> > > detail, nor would this be correct. So, I think this should add
> > > both Fixes: tags.
> > 
> > Yeah, I'm really not sure tbh. From a quick grep there do seem to
> > be 
> > other users relying on this:
> > 
> > drm/drm_drv.c:1274:module_init(drm_core_init);
> > drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c:238:module_init(drm_sched_fence_slab_in
> > it);
> > 
> > The sched one looks identical with the slab thing. Do these need to
> > be 
> > fixed also?
> 
> Yes, those should be fixed as well.
> 
> Also note that module_init() compiles down to device_initcall() when
> built-in,
> i.e. the initcall stage that is mainly for drivers, not for subsystem
> code.
> 
> Do you want to send a fix for thise as well?

Thanks for your input! The usage in drm_drv.c goes all the way back to
before the git history, so I'm not sure there's a Fixes: tag that would
make sense there. Do you have a recommendation for how to handle that
patch?

Overall, I don't think it makes sense to backport these fixes anyway -
there's no actual issue unless there's some large refactoring (like
what happened with drm/buddy).