On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 05:29:33PM +0800, maowenan wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/6/24 16:39, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> 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.
> >
> After using 8 character for tab(thanks to Joe), the aligned here is wrong, yes, the original was correct.
>
> so my v4 is only to change ret, don't change the indenting?
>
Yes, please. Sorry for my confusing email earlier.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
