I see you are inferring that a guc-id of zero can be valid. I am guessing that might have contributed to some lost captures? Thanks for catching this. Reviewed-by: Alan Previn <alan.previn.teres.alexis@xxxxxxxxx> On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 17:10 -0800, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > > The comparison in the search for a matching register capture node was > not the most readable. So remove two redundant terms and re-format to > keep each term on a single line, and only one term per line. > > Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c > index 710999d7189ee..87b080dd6bead 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_capture.c > @@ -1627,9 +1627,8 @@ void intel_guc_capture_get_matching_node(struct intel_gt *gt, > list_for_each_entry_safe(n, ntmp, &guc->capture->outlist, link) { > if (n->eng_inst == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_INSTANCE(ee->engine->guc_id) && > n->eng_class == GUC_ID_TO_ENGINE_CLASS(ee->engine->guc_id) && > - n->guc_id && n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id && > - (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) && (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) == > - (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) { > + n->guc_id == ce->guc_id.id && > + (n->lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK) == (ce->lrc.lrca & CTX_GTT_ADDRESS_MASK)) { > list_del(&n->link); > ee->guc_capture_node = n; > ee->guc_capture = guc->capture;