On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:38:11PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the clarifications and reviews. I have removed the 'Fixes:' tag
and pushed the patch as is.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
