[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Replace tmp_adev with hive in amdgpu_pci_slot_reset

[Lazar, Lijo]

On 4/9/2025 7:26 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 07:19:25PM +0530, Lazar, Lijo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/2025 7:09 PM, Ce Sun wrote:
>>> Checking hive is more readable.
>>>
>>> The following smatch warning:
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c:6820 amdgpu_pci_slot_reset()
>>> warn: iterator used outside loop: 'tmp_adev'
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8ba904f54148 ("drm/amdgpu: Multi-GPU DPC recovery support")
>>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ce Sun <cesun102 at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 6 +++---
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
>>> index 60269fba5745..6fb234832ff3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
>>> @@ -6784,8 +6784,8 @@ pci_ers_result_t amdgpu_pci_slot_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>  	struct drm_device *dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>  	struct amdgpu_device *adev = drm_to_adev(dev);
>>>  	struct amdgpu_reset_context reset_context;
>>> -	struct amdgpu_device *tmp_adev = NULL;
>>> -	struct amdgpu_hive_info *hive = NULL;
>>> +	struct amdgpu_device *tmp_adev;
>>> +	struct amdgpu_hive_info *hive;
>>>  	struct list_head device_list;
>>>  	int r = 0, i;
>>>  	u32 memsize;
>>> @@ -6846,7 +6846,7 @@ pci_ers_result_t amdgpu_pci_slot_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>>  		dev_info(adev->dev, "PCIe error recovery succeeded\n");
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		dev_err(adev->dev, "PCIe error recovery failed, err:%d\n", r);
>>> -		if (tmp_adev) {
>>> +		if (hive) {
>>
>> This doesn't look correct. I think the original logic is to have a
>> single device list or multi-device list when there is a hive. Now this
>> skips the step for single device case.
>>
> 
> I don't know what the original intentions were, but what I know is that
> this code will behave exactly the same as the original code.
> 

Yes, this correct with respect to the new patch. But the patch which
triggered this warning actually broke the single device handling path.

Thanks,
Lijo

> regards,
> dan carpenter
>