On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:55:20 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>
Hi Rodrigo,
> > @@ -849,5 +849,26 @@ void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> >
> > void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > {
> > - fetch_and_zero(&i915->hwmon);
> > + struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = fetch_and_zero(&i915->hwmon);
> > + struct hwm_drvdata *ddat = &hwmon->ddat;
> > + struct intel_gt *gt;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (!hwmon)
> > + return;
>
> "that's too late", we are going to hear from static analyzer tools.
>
> beter to move ddat = &hwmon->ddat; after this return.
Yeah, I worried a lot about it :/ But then finally decided (and verified)
that we are never actually dereferencing the (possibly NULL) pointer.
But not sure about static analyzer tools, maybe you are right, I'll move
it.
> with that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks a lot :)
Ashutosh
>
> > +
> > + for_each_gt(gt, i915, i) {
> > + struct hwm_drvdata *ddat_gt = hwmon->ddat_gt + i;
> > +
> > + if (ddat_gt->hwmon_dev) {
> > + hwmon_device_unregister(ddat_gt->hwmon_dev);
> > + ddat_gt->hwmon_dev = NULL;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ddat->hwmon_dev)
> > + hwmon_device_unregister(ddat->hwmon_dev);
> > +
> > + mutex_destroy(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > + kfree(hwmon);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.41.0
> >
