On Mon, 06 Nov 2023, Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/6/23 16:53, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Nov 2023, Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> sparse static analysis tools generate a warning with this message
>>> "Using plain integer as NULL pointer". In this case this warning is
>>> being shown because we are trying to intialize a pointer to NULL using
>>> integer value 0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/clearstate_evergreen.h | 8 ++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/clearstate_evergreen.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/clearstate_evergreen.h
>>> index 63a1ffbb3ced..3b645558f133 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/clearstate_evergreen.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/clearstate_evergreen.h
>>> @@ -1049,7 +1049,7 @@ static const struct cs_extent_def SECT_CONTEXT_defs[] =
>>> {SECT_CONTEXT_def_5, 0x0000a29e, 5 },
>>> {SECT_CONTEXT_def_6, 0x0000a2a5, 56 },
>>> {SECT_CONTEXT_def_7, 0x0000a2de, 290 },
>>> - { 0, 0, 0 }
>>> + { NULL, 0, 0 }
>>
>> Random drive-by comment:
>>
>> I'd just use {} as the sentinel.
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>> };
>>> static const u32 SECT_CLEAR_def_1[] =
>>> {
>>> @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ static const u32 SECT_CLEAR_def_1[] =
>>> static const struct cs_extent_def SECT_CLEAR_defs[] =
>>> {
>>> {SECT_CLEAR_def_1, 0x0000ffc0, 3 },
>>> - { 0, 0, 0 }
>>> + { NULL, 0, 0 }
>>> };
>>> static const u32 SECT_CTRLCONST_def_1[] =
>>> {
>>> @@ -1070,11 +1070,11 @@ static const u32 SECT_CTRLCONST_def_1[] =
>>> static const struct cs_extent_def SECT_CTRLCONST_defs[] =
>>> {
>>> {SECT_CTRLCONST_def_1, 0x0000f3fc, 2 },
>>> - { 0, 0, 0 }
>>> + { NULL, 0, 0 }
>>> };
>>> static const struct cs_section_def evergreen_cs_data[] = {
>>> { SECT_CONTEXT_defs, SECT_CONTEXT },
>>> { SECT_CLEAR_defs, SECT_CLEAR },
>>> { SECT_CTRLCONST_defs, SECT_CTRLCONST },
>>> - { 0, SECT_NONE }
>>> + { NULL, SECT_NONE }
>>> };
>>> --
>>> 2.39.2
>>>
>>
> Hi, Thanks for dropping by and the suggestion. I thought of using NULL
> instead of {} is because, first the warning itself says that 0 is used
> to intialize pointers with NULL, and second due this link
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sparse/msg10066.html where linus is
> talking about not using 0 NULL intialization of pointer variable and he
> thinks this is a legitimate issue and not some false positive
But... {} is neither of those things. It's empty initialization instead
of 0. It's valid in GCC and C23, and used all over the place in the
kernel.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
