Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
Applied. Thanks!
Alex
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 9:18 AM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
> > Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
> > itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
> > return
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian König
>
> I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
> > index 2c27627b6659..f15b20da5315 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
> > @@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct
> > atom_context *ctx, int index, uint32
> > SDEBUG("<<\n");
> >
> > free:
> > - if (ws)
> > - kfree(ectx.ws);
> > + kfree(ectx.ws);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
>
> ___
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
Am 30.04.20 um 13:00 schrieb Bernard:
发件人：Joe Perches
发送日期：2020-04-27 01:53:06
收件人："Christian König" ,Bernard Zhao ,Alex Deucher
,"David (ChunMing) Zhou" ,David Airlie
,Daniel Vetter
,amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org,linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
抄送人：opensource.ker...@vivo.com
主题：Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit>On Sun, 2020-04-26 at
15:18 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
return
Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
Reviewed-by: Christian König
I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before.
because this pattern is
if (foo)
kfree(bar);
and the pattern looked for is:
if (foo)
kfree(foo);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
[]
@@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct atom_context
*ctx, int index, uint32
SDEBUG("<<\n");
free:
- if (ws)
- kfree(ectx.ws);
+ kfree(ectx.ws);
return ret;
}
I'm wondering if this removal is correct as the function
is named _locked and it may be recursive or called under
some external lock.
Hi
I am a little confused about this. I understand that the caller guarantees the
lock protection
that we will not release the wrong pointer. And the NULL check is the same with
the first check in kfree?
Maybe we do not need check twich.
I don't understand the comment either. When you look at the function you
see that code is freeing up the temporary allocated buffer which is to
large for the stack.
In other words we kcalloc() this buffer a few lines above and free it
here again. So I think the patch is perfectly valid.
What we could do is to update the coci pattern to catch this as well,
but this case is so rare that it is probably not worth it.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Bernard
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re:Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
发件人：Joe Perches
发送日期：2020-04-27 01:53:06
收件人："Christian König" ,Bernard Zhao
,Alex Deucher ,"David (ChunMing)
Zhou" ,David Airlie ,Daniel Vetter
,amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org,linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
抄送人：opensource.ker...@vivo.com
主题：Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit>On Sun, 2020-04-26 at
15:18 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
>> > Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
>> > itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
>> > return
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian König
>>
>> I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before.
>
>because this pattern is
>
> if (foo)
> kfree(bar);
>
>and the pattern looked for is:
>
> if (foo)
> kfree(foo);
>
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
>[]
>> > @@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct
>> > atom_context *ctx, int index, uint32
>> >SDEBUG("<<\n");
>> >
>> > free:
>> > - if (ws)
>> > - kfree(ectx.ws);
>> > + kfree(ectx.ws);
>> >return ret;
>> > }
>
>I'm wondering if this removal is correct as the function
>is named _locked and it may be recursive or called under
>some external lock.
>
Hi
I am a little confused about this. I understand that the caller guarantees the
lock protection
that we will not release the wrong pointer. And the NULL check is the same with
the first check in kfree?
Maybe we do not need check twich.
Regards,
Bernard
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 15:18 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
> > Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
> > itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
> > return
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian König
>
> I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before.
because this pattern is
if (foo)
kfree(bar);
and the pattern looked for is:
if (foo)
kfree(foo);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
[]
> > @@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct
> > atom_context *ctx, int index, uint32
> > SDEBUG("<<\n");
> >
> > free:
> > - if (ws)
> > - kfree(ectx.ws);
> > + kfree(ectx.ws);
> > return ret;
> > }
I'm wondering if this removal is correct as the function
is named _locked and it may be recursive or called under
some external lock.
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
[PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
return
Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
index 2c27627b6659..f15b20da5315 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
@@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct atom_context
*ctx, int index, uint32
SDEBUG("<<\n");
free:
- if (ws)
- kfree(ectx.ws);
+ kfree(ectx.ws);
return ret;
}
--
2.26.2
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
btw: the debugging macros in atom.c are not good.
It could be something like the below as the output logging is
at best poorly formatted due to the many individual printks
without KERN_ that are emitted on separate lines.
#define ATOM_DEBUG
should probably be commented out.
The debugging macros and #include file should be better formatted.
The no_printk macro is useful to verify formats and arguments when
not debugging and removing the ATOM_DEBUG from atom-names.h does
not cause the unused char *arrays to be added to the object file
as the compiler elides unused arrays.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom-names.h | 266 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c | 23 ++--
2 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom-names.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom-names.h
index 6f907a5..055775 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom-names.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom-names.h
@@ -27,74 +27,218 @@
#include "atom.h"
-#ifdef ATOM_DEBUG
-
#define ATOM_OP_NAMES_CNT 123
-static char *atom_op_names[ATOM_OP_NAMES_CNT] = {
-"RESERVED", "MOVE_REG", "MOVE_PS", "MOVE_WS", "MOVE_FB", "MOVE_PLL",
-"MOVE_MC", "AND_REG", "AND_PS", "AND_WS", "AND_FB", "AND_PLL", "AND_MC",
-"OR_REG", "OR_PS", "OR_WS", "OR_FB", "OR_PLL", "OR_MC", "SHIFT_LEFT_REG",
-"SHIFT_LEFT_PS", "SHIFT_LEFT_WS", "SHIFT_LEFT_FB", "SHIFT_LEFT_PLL",
-"SHIFT_LEFT_MC", "SHIFT_RIGHT_REG", "SHIFT_RIGHT_PS", "SHIFT_RIGHT_WS",
-"SHIFT_RIGHT_FB", "SHIFT_RIGHT_PLL", "SHIFT_RIGHT_MC", "MUL_REG",
-"MUL_PS", "MUL_WS", "MUL_FB", "MUL_PLL", "MUL_MC", "DIV_REG", "DIV_PS",
-"DIV_WS", "DIV_FB", "DIV_PLL", "DIV_MC", "ADD_REG", "ADD_PS", "ADD_WS",
-"ADD_FB", "ADD_PLL", "ADD_MC", "SUB_REG", "SUB_PS", "SUB_WS", "SUB_FB",
-"SUB_PLL", "SUB_MC", "SET_ATI_PORT", "SET_PCI_PORT", "SET_SYS_IO_PORT",
-"SET_REG_BLOCK", "SET_FB_BASE", "COMPARE_REG", "COMPARE_PS",
-"COMPARE_WS", "COMPARE_FB", "COMPARE_PLL", "COMPARE_MC", "SWITCH",
-"JUMP", "JUMP_EQUAL", "JUMP_BELOW", "JUMP_ABOVE", "JUMP_BELOW_OR_EQUAL",
-"JUMP_ABOVE_OR_EQUAL", "JUMP_NOT_EQUAL", "TEST_REG", "TEST_PS", "TEST_WS",
-"TEST_FB", "TEST_PLL", "TEST_MC", "DELAY_MILLISEC", "DELAY_MICROSEC",
-"CALL_TABLE", "REPEAT", "CLEAR_REG", "CLEAR_PS", "CLEAR_WS", "CLEAR_FB",
-"CLEAR_PLL", "CLEAR_MC", "NOP", "EOT", "MASK_REG", "MASK_PS", "MASK_WS",
-"MASK_FB", "MASK_PLL", "MASK_MC", "POST_CARD", "BEEP", "SAVE_REG",
-"RESTORE_REG", "SET_DATA_BLOCK", "XOR_REG", "XOR_PS", "XOR_WS", "XOR_FB",
-"XOR_PLL", "XOR_MC", "SHL_REG", "SHL_PS", "SHL_WS", "SHL_FB", "SHL_PLL",
-"SHL_MC", "SHR_REG", "SHR_PS", "SHR_WS", "SHR_FB", "SHR_PLL", "SHR_MC",
-"DEBUG", "CTB_DS",
+static const char * const atom_op_names[ATOM_OP_NAMES_CNT] = {
+ "RESERVED",
+ "MOVE_REG",
+ "MOVE_PS",
+ "MOVE_WS",
+ "MOVE_FB",
+ "MOVE_PLL",
+ "MOVE_MC",
+ "AND_REG",
+ "AND_PS",
+ "AND_WS",
+ "AND_FB",
+ "AND_PLL",
+ "AND_MC",
+ "OR_REG",
+ "OR_PS",
+ "OR_WS",
+ "OR_FB",
+ "OR_PLL",
+ "OR_MC",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_REG",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_PS",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_WS",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_FB",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_PLL",
+ "SHIFT_LEFT_MC",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_REG",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_PS",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_WS",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_FB",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_PLL",
+ "SHIFT_RIGHT_MC",
+ "MUL_REG",
+ "MUL_PS",
+ "MUL_WS",
+ "MUL_FB",
+ "MUL_PLL",
+ "MUL_MC",
+ "DIV_REG",
+ "DIV_PS",
+ "DIV_WS",
+ "DIV_FB",
+ "DIV_PLL",
+ "DIV_MC",
+ "ADD_REG",
+ "ADD_PS",
+ "ADD_WS",
+ "ADD_FB",
+ "ADD_PLL",
+ "ADD_MC",
+ "SUB_REG",
+ "SUB_PS",
+ "SUB_WS",
+ "SUB_FB",
+ "SUB_PLL",
+ "SUB_MC",
+ "SET_ATI_PORT",
+ "SET_PCI_PORT",
+ "SET_SYS_IO_PORT",
+ "SET_REG_BLOCK",
+ "SET_FB_BASE",
+ "COMPARE_REG",
+ "COMPARE_PS",
+ "COMPARE_WS",
+ "COMPARE_FB",
+ "COMPARE_PLL",
+ "COMPARE_MC",
+ "SWITCH",
+ "JUMP",
+ "JUMP_EQUAL",
+ "JUMP_BELOW",
+ "JUMP_ABOVE",
+ "JUMP_BELOW_OR_EQUAL",
+ "JUMP_ABOVE_OR_EQUAL",
+ "JUMP_NOT_EQUAL",
+ "TEST_REG",
+ "TEST_PS",
+ "TEST_WS",
+ "TEST_FB",
+ "TEST_PLL",
+ "TEST_MC",
+ "DELAY_MILLISEC",
+ "DELAY_MICROSEC",
+ "CALL_TABLE",
+ "REPEAT",
+ "CLEAR_REG",
+ "CLEAR_PS",
+ "CLEAR_WS",
+ "CLEAR_FB",
+ "CLEAR_PLL",
+ "CLEAR_MC",
+ "NOP",
+ "EOT",
+ "MASK_REG",
+ "MASK_PS",
+ "MASK_WS",
+ "MASK_FB",
+ "MASK_PLL",
+ "MASK_MC",
+ "POST_CARD",
+ "BEEP",
+ "SAVE_REG",
+ "RESTORE_REG",
+ "SET_DATA_BLOCK",
+ "XOR_REG",
+ "XOR_PS",
+ "XOR_WS",
+ "XOR_FB",
+ "XOR_PLL",
+ "XOR_MC",
+ "SHL_REG",
+ "SHL_PS",
+
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: cleanup coding style a bit
Am 26.04.20 um 15:12 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
Maybe no need to check ws before kmalloc, kmalloc will check
itself, kmalloc`s logic is if ptr is NULL, kmalloc will just
return
Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao
Reviewed-by: Christian König
I'm wondering why the automated scripts haven't found that one before.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
index 2c27627b6659..f15b20da5315 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atom.c
@@ -1211,8 +1211,7 @@ static int atom_execute_table_locked(struct atom_context
*ctx, int index, uint32
SDEBUG("<<\n");
free:
- if (ws)
- kfree(ectx.ws);
+ kfree(ectx.ws);
return ret;
}
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
