lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next v3] drm/amdgpu: return 'ret' immediately if failed in amdgpu_pmu_init
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:45:32AM +0800, Mao Wenan wrote:
> There is one warning:
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c: In function ‘amdgpu_pmu_init’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c:249:6: warning: variable ‘ret’ set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
> int ret = 0;
> ^
> amdgpu_pmu_init() is called by amdgpu_device_init() in drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c,
> which will use the return value. So it should return 'ret' immediately if init_pmu_by_type() failed.
> amdgpu_device_init()
> r = amdgpu_pmu_init(adev);
>
> This patch is also to update the indenting on the arguments so they line up with the '('.
>
> Fixes: 9c7c85f7ea1f ("drm/amdgpu: add pmu counters")
>
> Signed-off-by: Mao Wenan <maowenan@huawei.com>
> ---
> v1->v2: change the subject for this patch; change the indenting when it calls init_pmu_by_type; use the value 'ret' in
> amdgpu_pmu_init().
> v2->v3: change the subject for this patch; return 'ret' immediately if failed to call init_pmu_by_type().
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c
> index 0e6dba9..b702322 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_pmu.c
> @@ -252,8 +252,11 @@ int amdgpu_pmu_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev)
> case CHIP_VEGA20:
> /* init df */
> ret = init_pmu_by_type(adev, df_v3_6_attr_groups,
> - "DF", "amdgpu_df", PERF_TYPE_AMDGPU_DF,
> - DF_V3_6_MAX_COUNTERS);
> + "DF", "amdgpu_df",
> + PERF_TYPE_AMDGPU_DF,
> + DF_V3_6_MAX_COUNTERS);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;

No no. Sorry, the original indenting was correct and lined up with the
'(' character in 'init_pmu_by_type(', that's the way it should be. If
we were to remove the "ret = " then we'd have to pull the arguments back
as well. I think this fix that Julia suggested is really the right so
leave the indenting alone.

It looks like you've right aligned the arguments. That's not the right
way, the original was correct.

regards,
dan carpenter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-24 10:41    [W:0.064 / U:37.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site