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
