[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix uninitialized mask in intel_device_info_subplatform_init

Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Wed Apr 3 08:13:59 UTC 2019

On 03/04/2019 08:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-03 07:44:07)
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Mask need to be initialized to zero since device id checks may not match.
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>
>> Fixes: 805446c8347c ("drm/i915: Introduce concept of a sub-platform")
>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>> Cc: Jose Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
>> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
>> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com>
> Bots are doing a better job than me, but still
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>

It's my bad, probably introduced due various refactoring of the patch 
itself. Since I definitely remember changing the mask initialization 
back and forth.

No huge harm done since caught quickly by this very valuable service 
provided by Dan.



P.S. Also the assert about no junk in high bits did not fire in CI which 
would suggest stack slot was either zero or no more than three low bits 
sets. Strange luck.

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list