Patch "drm/amdgpu: fix unchecked return value warning for amdgpu_gfx" has been added to the 6.10-stable tree

[Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    drm/amdgpu: fix unchecked return value warning for amdgpu_gfx

to the 6.10-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     drm-amdgpu-fix-unchecked-return-value-warning-for-am.patch
and it can be found in the queue-6.10 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.



commit d7726729a2100aaf7a1070454c2df1ffb28dddcf
Author: Tim Huang <tim.huang@xxxxxxx>
Date:   Thu Aug 1 10:38:37 2024 +0800

    drm/amdgpu: fix unchecked return value warning for amdgpu_gfx
    
    [ Upstream commit c0277b9d7c2ee9ee5dbc948548984f0fbb861301 ]
    
    This resolves the unchecded return value warning reported by Coverity.
    
    Signed-off-by: Tim Huang <tim.huang@xxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Jesse Zhang <jesse.zhang@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_gfx.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_gfx.c
index e92bdc9a39d35..1935b211b527d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_gfx.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_gfx.c
@@ -816,8 +816,11 @@ int amdgpu_gfx_ras_late_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct ras_common_if *r
 	int r;
 
 	if (amdgpu_ras_is_supported(adev, ras_block->block)) {
-		if (!amdgpu_persistent_edc_harvesting_supported(adev))
-			amdgpu_ras_reset_error_status(adev, AMDGPU_RAS_BLOCK__GFX);
+		if (!amdgpu_persistent_edc_harvesting_supported(adev)) {
+			r = amdgpu_ras_reset_error_status(adev, AMDGPU_RAS_BLOCK__GFX);
+			if (r)
+				return r;
+		}
 
 		r = amdgpu_ras_block_late_init(adev, ras_block);
 		if (r)
@@ -961,7 +964,10 @@ uint32_t amdgpu_kiq_rreg(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t reg, uint32_t xcc_
 		pr_err("critical bug! too many kiq readers\n");
 		goto failed_unlock;
 	}
-	amdgpu_ring_alloc(ring, 32);
+	r = amdgpu_ring_alloc(ring, 32);
+	if (r)
+		goto failed_unlock;
+
 	amdgpu_ring_emit_rreg(ring, reg, reg_val_offs);
 	r = amdgpu_fence_emit_polling(ring, &seq, MAX_KIQ_REG_WAIT);
 	if (r)
@@ -1027,7 +1033,10 @@ void amdgpu_kiq_wreg(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t reg, uint32_t v, uint3
 	}
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(&kiq->ring_lock, flags);
-	amdgpu_ring_alloc(ring, 32);
+	r = amdgpu_ring_alloc(ring, 32);
+	if (r)
+		goto failed_unlock;
+
 	amdgpu_ring_emit_wreg(ring, reg, v);
 	r = amdgpu_fence_emit_polling(ring, &seq, MAX_KIQ_REG_WAIT);
 	if (r)
@@ -1063,6 +1072,7 @@ void amdgpu_kiq_wreg(struct amdgpu_device *adev, uint32_t reg, uint32_t v, uint3
 
 failed_undo:
 	amdgpu_ring_undo(ring);
+failed_unlock:
 	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kiq->ring_lock, flags);
 failed_kiq_write:
 	dev_err(adev->dev, "failed to write reg:%x\n", reg);