Re: drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c:604 vc4_lock_bo_reservations() error: uninitialized symbol 'ret'.

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Hi Maira,
> 
> Am 09.04.25 um 21:49 schrieb Maíra Canal:
> > + König
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > On 02/04/25 05:43, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >> head:   acc4d5ff0b61eb1715c498b6536c38c1feb7f3c1
> >> commit: 04630796c437a9285643097825cbd3cd06603f47 drm/vc4: Use DRM Execution Contexts
> >> date:   2 months ago
> >> config: arm64-randconfig-r073-20250402 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250402/202504021500.3AM1hKKS-lkp@intel.com/config)
> >> compiler: clang version 14.0.6 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project f28c006a5895fc0e329fe15fead81e37457cb1d1)
> >>
> >> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> >> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> >> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >> | Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> >> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202504021500.3AM1hKKS-lkp@intel.com/
> >>
> >> smatch warnings:
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c:604 vc4_lock_bo_reservations() error: uninitialized symbol 'ret'.
> >>
> >> vim +/ret +604 drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_gem.c
> >>
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  589  static int
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  590  vc4_lock_bo_reservations(struct vc4_exec_info *exec,
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  591               struct drm_exec *exec_ctx)
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  592  {
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  593      int ret;
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  594
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  595      /* Reserve space for our shared (read-only) fence references,
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  596       * before we commit the CL to the hardware.
> >> cdec4d3613230f Eric Anholt 2017-04-12  597       */
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  598      drm_exec_init(exec_ctx, DRM_EXEC_INTERRUPTIBLE_WAIT, exec->bo_count);
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  599      drm_exec_until_all_locked(exec_ctx) {
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  600          ret = drm_exec_prepare_array(exec_ctx, exec->bo,
> >> 04630796c437a9 Maíra Canal 2024-12-20  601                           exec->bo_count, 1);
> >>
> >> This is a false positive in Smatch.  I can silence the warning on my
> >> end easily enough to say that we always enter the drm_exec_until_all_locked()
> >> loop.  But the question is why do we only test the last "ret" instead of
> >> testing all of them?
> >
> > AFAIU `drm_exec_until_all_locked` will loop until all GEM objects are
> > locked and no more contention exists. As we have a single operation
> > inside the loop, we don't need to check "ret" for every iteration.
> >
> > I believe Christian will possibly give you a more precise answer as he
> > designed the API.
> 
> Yeah that explanation is absolutely correct.
> 
> The drm_exec_until_all_locked() helper loops until all contention is resolved and all buffer locked.
> 
> You could avoid the snatch warning if you move the error handling into the loop, e.g. something like this here:
> 
> drm_exec_until_all_locked(exec_ctx) {
>     ret = drm_exec_prepare_array(exec_ctx, exec->bo, exec->bo_count, 1);
>     drm_exec_continue_on_contention(exec_ctx);
>     if (ret) {
>         drm_exec_fini(exec_ctx);
>         return ret;
>     }
> }
> 

Don't worry about silencing it.  I already silenced it in Smatch a couple
days ago.

regards,
dan carpenter