On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 08:33:41AM +0530, Arun R Murthy wrote:
Check return value for drmm_mutex_init as it can fail and return on failure. Signed-off-by: Arun R Murthy <arun.r.murthy@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c index e4db069f0db3..c59fa832758d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_display.c @@ -107,12 +107,24 @@ int xe_display_create(struct xe_device *xe) xe->display.hotplug.dp_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("xe-dp", 0); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->sb_lock); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.backlight.lock); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.audio.mutex); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.wm.wm_mutex); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.pps.mutex); - drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.hdcp.hdcp_mutex); + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->sb_lock); + if (err) + return err; + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.backlight.lock); + if (err) + return err; + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.audio.mutex); + if (err) + return err; + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.wm.wm_mutex); + if (err) + return err; + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.pps.mutex); + if (err) + return err; + err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.hdcp.hdcp_mutex); + if (err) + return err;
humn... but not very pretty. What about? if ((err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->sb_lock)) || (err = drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->display.backlight.lock)) || (err = ...)) return err; I think there are few places in life for assignment + check in single statement, but IMO this is one of them where the alternative is uglier and more error prone. thoughts? Lucas De Marchi
xe->enabled_irq_mask = ~0; err = drmm_add_action_or_reset(&xe->drm, display_destroy, NULL); -- 2.25.1