[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Parallel submission aka multi-bb execbuf (rev4)

[John Harrison]

On 10/4/2021 15:21, Patchwork wrote:
> == Series Details ==
>
> Series: Parallel submission aka multi-bb execbuf (rev4)
> URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/92789/
> State : warning
>
> == Summary ==
>
> $ dim checkpatch origin/drm-tip
> e2a47a99bf9d drm/i915/guc: Move GuC guc_id allocation under submission state sub-struct
> f83d8f1539fa drm/i915/guc: Take GT PM ref when deregistering context
> -:79: CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'gt' - possible side-effects?
> #79: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.h:44:
> +#define with_intel_gt_pm(gt, tmp) \
> +	for (tmp = 1, intel_gt_pm_get(gt); tmp; \
> +	     intel_gt_pm_put(gt), tmp = 0)
>
> -:79: CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse 'tmp' - possible side-effects?
> #79: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.h:44:
> +#define with_intel_gt_pm(gt, tmp) \
> +	for (tmp = 1, intel_gt_pm_get(gt); tmp; \
> +	     intel_gt_pm_put(gt), tmp = 0)
Not sure what these two are complaining about? But 'gt' and 'tmp' should 
be wrapped with parentheses when used?

>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 290 lines checked
> 93e5284929b3 drm/i915/guc: Take engine PM when a context is pinned with GuC submission
> 4dd6554d994d drm/i915/guc: Don't call switch_to_kernel_context with GuC submission
> 8629b55f536c drm/i915: Add logical engine mapping
> 8117ec0a1ca7 drm/i915: Expose logical engine instance to user
> aa8e1eb4dd4e drm/i915/guc: Introduce context parent-child relationship
> aaf50eacc2fd drm/i915/guc: Add multi-lrc context registration
> e5f6f50e66d1 drm/i915/guc: Ensure GuC schedule operations do not operate on child contexts
> adf21ba138f3 drm/i915/guc: Assign contexts in parent-child relationship consecutive guc_ids
> 40ef33318b81 drm/i915/guc: Implement parallel context pin / unpin functions
> 1ad560c70346 drm/i915/guc: Implement multi-lrc submission
> -:364: CHECK:SPACING: spaces preferred around that '*' (ctx:ExV)
> #364: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c:771:
> +		*wqi++ = child->ring->tail / sizeof(u64);
>   		^
This seems like a bogus warning.

>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1 checks, 570 lines checked
> 466c01457dec drm/i915/guc: Insert submit fences between requests in parent-child relationship
> 2ece815c1f18 drm/i915/guc: Implement multi-lrc reset
> 7add5784199f drm/i915/guc: Update debugfs for GuC multi-lrc
> -:23: CHECK:LINE_SPACING: Please don't use multiple blank lines
> #23: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c:3707:
>   
> +
This should be fixed.

>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1 checks, 67 lines checked
> 966991d7bbed drm/i915: Fix bug in user proto-context creation that leaked contexts
> 0eb3d3bf0c84 drm/i915/guc: Connect UAPI to GuC multi-lrc interface
> 68c6596b649a drm/i915/doc: Update parallel submit doc to point to i915_drm.h
> -:13: WARNING:FILE_PATH_CHANGES: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
> #13:
> deleted file mode 100644
>
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 10 lines checked
> 8290f5d15ca2 drm/i915/guc: Add basic GuC multi-lrc selftest
> -:22: WARNING:FILE_PATH_CHANGES: added, moved or deleted file(s), does MAINTAINERS need updating?
> #22:
> new file mode 100644
These two can be ignored.

> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 190 lines checked
> ade3768c42d5 drm/i915/guc: Implement no mid batch preemption for multi-lrc
> 57882939d788 drm/i915: Multi-BB execbuf
> -:369: CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse '_i' - possible side-effects?
> #369: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c:1854:
> +#define for_each_batch_create_order(_eb, _i) \
> +	for (_i = 0; _i < (_eb)->num_batches; ++_i)
Again, not sure the 'reuse' comment means but should also use '(_i)'?

>
> -:371: ERROR:MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE: Macros with multiple statements should be enclosed in a do - while loop
> #371: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c:1856:
> +#define for_each_batch_add_order(_eb, _i) \
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(!typecheck(int, _i)); \
> +	for (_i = (_eb)->num_batches - 1; _i >= 0; --_i)
This seems bogus. Wrapping it in a do/while will break the purpose!

>
> -:371: CHECK:MACRO_ARG_REUSE: Macro argument reuse '_i' - possible side-effects?
> #371: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c:1856:
> +#define for_each_batch_add_order(_eb, _i) \
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(!typecheck(int, _i)); \
> +	for (_i = (_eb)->num_batches - 1; _i >= 0; --_i)
As above.

>
> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 2 checks, 1298 lines checked
> 28b699ece289 drm/i915/guc: Handle errors in multi-lrc requests
> 962e6b3dce59 drm/i915: Make request conflict tracking understand parallel submits
> 368ab12f5205 drm/i915: Update I915_GEM_BUSY IOCTL to understand composite fences
> b52570f01859 drm/i915: Enable multi-bb execbuf
> 8766155832d7 drm/i915/execlists: Weak parallel submission support for execlists
>
>