On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:55:59PM -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:10:29PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023, "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:51:34 -0800, Jani Nikula wrote:
+static int oa_init_gt(struct intel_gt *gt)
+{
+ u32 num_groups = __num_perf_groups_per_gt(gt);
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
+ struct i915_perf_group *g;
+ intel_engine_mask_t tmp;
+
+ g = kcalloc(num_groups, sizeof(*g), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (drm_WARN_ON(>->i915->drm, !g))
+ return -ENOMEM;
No warnings or messages on -ENOMEM is standard policy.
Hmm I think this is the only error for which this code is failing the
probe. So if we are not going to fail the probe, we should at least allow a
WARN_ON? Exception proves the rule?
A whole lot of other things are going to go bonkers on -ENOMEM, and
getting that warn isn't going to help anyone...
Should I just add a debug message here instead of warn_ON?
nvm, you already mentioned no warn/message on ENOMEM.
Regards,
Umesh
Maybe we do need to fail probe on this after all, but it just seemed
pointless at the time it was introduced a few patches earlier.
Sorry about that, I will fix the order of patches.
Umesh
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
