On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:41:55PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Rodrigo, > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 05:31:07PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > This null check is bogus because we are already using 'ce' stuff > > in many places before this function is called. > > > > Having this here is useless and confuses static analyzer tools > > that can see: > > > > struct intel_engine_cs *engine = ce->engine; > > > > before this check, in the same function. > > > > Fixes: cec82816d0d0 ("drm/i915/guc: Use context hints for GT frequency") > > there is no need to have the Fixes tag here. why not? I imagine distros that have this commit cec82816d0d0 and use static analyzers would also want this patch ported to silent those, no?! > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202403101225.7AheJhZJ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Cc: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > index 01d0ec1b30f2..24a82616f844 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > @@ -2677,7 +2677,7 @@ static int guc_context_policy_init_v70(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop) > > execution_quantum = engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1000; > > preemption_timeout = engine->props.preempt_timeout_ms * 1000; > > > > - if (ce && (ce->flags & BIT(CONTEXT_LOW_LATENCY))) > > + if (ce->flags & BIT(CONTEXT_LOW_LATENCY)) > > We could keep the check but make it earlier. yes, that's another alternative. -struct intel_engine_cs *engine = ce->engine; +struct intel_engine_cs *engine; if (!ce) return; engine = ce->engine. But looking to the 2 places where this function is getting called, we already have ce->something used. I can make the change to be like that if you believe that there's a possibility in the future that we change that, just to be on the safe side. or anything else I might be missing? Thanks for looking into this, Rodrigo. > > Thanks, > Andi > > > slpc_ctx_freq_req |= SLPC_CTX_FREQ_REQ_IS_COMPUTE; > > > > __guc_context_policy_start_klv(&policy, ce->guc_id.id); > > -- > > 2.44.0