On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 08:09:38AM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 09:39:17PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:41:55PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > 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?!
>
> Still... it's not a bug. The tag "Fixes:" should be used when a
> bug is fixed, but not for harmless static analyzer reports.
>
> Besides, if we want to keep the Fixes tag we should also Cc
> stable, i guess checkpatch.pl complains about it.
>
> (BTW, Cc'ed in this mail we have the inventor of the tag and he
> can confirm after having had his morning coffee :-) ).
>
Good. I keep reminding people that I invented the Fixes tag because it
is my proudest achievement. :)
No. Only use Fixes tags for bug fixes.
regards,
dan carpenter
