On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 02:07:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 11:32:45AM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 at 09:45, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > cf586021642d80 Chris Wilson 2021-06-17 84 > > > cf586021642d80 Chris Wilson 2021-06-17 85 err = fn(migrate, &ww, src, dst, &rq); > > > cf586021642d80 Chris Wilson 2021-06-17 86 if (!err) > > > cf586021642d80 Chris Wilson 2021-06-17 87 continue; > > > > > > Does fn() initialize "rq" on the success path? Anyway Smatch would > > > complain anyway because it thinks the list could be empty or that we > > > might hit and early continue for everything. > > > > The fn() will always first initialize the rq to NULL. If it returns > > success then rq will always be a valid rq. If it returns an err then > > the rq might be NULL, or a valid rq depending on how far the copy/fn > > got. > > > > And for_i915_gem_ww() will always run at least once, since ww->loop = > > true, so this looks like a false positive? > > You don't think i915_gem_object_lock(), i915_gem_object_pin_map() or > i915_gem_object_pin_map() can fail? Btw, I sincerely hope that we will re-enable GCC's uninitialized variable checks. Will GCC be able to verify that this is initialized? regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
