Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Medium] Replacing `pr_err()` and `pr_debug()` with `drm_err(NULL, ...)` and `drm_dbg(NULL, ...)` in mock selftests pollutes the kernel log with `(NULL device *)` boilerplate. - [Low] Incorrect indentation on `err = expect_pfn_sgtable(...);`. - [Low] Renaming the `ignored` parameter to `arg` without using it reduces code clarity. --
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v2 1/8] drm/i915/selftests: Use drm_* prints in mock selftests --- commit bac5b0f26375c24916b2bc63bce26e485e392abc Author: Krzysztof Karas <[email protected]> drm/i915/selftests: Use drm_* prints in mock selftests This commit replaces generic pr_* prints with drm_* versions in the mock selftests to be more device context aware. > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_sw_fence.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_sw_fence.c > index 6a305322e30db..462704e575f5b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_sw_fence.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_sw_fence.c [ ... ] > @@ -107,7 +109,7 @@ static int test_dag(void *arg) > return -ENOMEM; > > if (i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence_gfp(A, A, GFP_KERNEL) != -EINVAL) { > - pr_err("recursive cycle not detected (AA)\n"); > + drm_err(NULL, "recursive cycle not detected (AA)\n"); [Severity: Medium] Will passing NULL to drm_err() here and elsewhere result in the log being polluted with "(NULL device *)" boilerplate? Since mock selftests typically run without a real device context, does using drm_err(NULL, ...) actually provide the context mentioned in the commit message, or does it just degrade the log output formatting? [ ... ] > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/scatterlist.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/scatterlist.c > index 7e59591bbed6c..d8fbe5a8060b6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/scatterlist.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/scatterlist.c [ ... ] > @@ -275,7 +281,7 @@ static const npages_fn_t npages_funcs[] = { > NULL, > }; > > -static int igt_sg_alloc(void *ignored) > +static int igt_sg_alloc(void *arg) [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but renaming the parameter from "ignored" to "arg" makes it less obvious that the parameter is intentionally unused. Is there a reason this was changed? [ ... ] > @@ -305,7 +311,7 @@ static int igt_sg_alloc(void *ignored) > > prandom_seed_state(&prng, > i915_selftest.random_seed); > - err = expect_pfn_sgtable(&pt, *npages, &prng, > + err = expect_pfn_sgtable(&pt, *npages, > &prng, [Severity: Low] This isn't a bug, but it looks like this line was accidentally indented with an extra tab, causing it to misalign with the surrounding code. > "sg_alloc_table", > end_time); > sg_free_table(&pt.st); -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1
