linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] amdgpu: remove unnecessary condition check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4c027bd0-c2ff-b587-6389-62a3d25dec1b@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:06:03 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     1587180037-113840-1-git-send-email-bernard@...o.com,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        "David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     opensource.kernel@...o.com, Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] amdgpu: remove unnecessary condition check

Am 21.04.20 um 10:03 schrieb Bernard Zhao:
> There is no need to if check again, maybe we could merge
> into the above else branch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
>
> Changes since V1:
> *commit message improve
> *code style refactoring
>
> Changes since V2:
> *code style adjust
>
> Link for V1:
> *https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F1226587%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C0b8fffafb715474289b208d7e5ca7f6c%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637230530201280350&amp;sdata=Sewv5ESX%2B0B4DbFbE03uM5sifrEcmJllC8pt7J42I7M%3D&amp;reserved=0
> ---
>   .../gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c   | 18 +++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
> index 9dff792c9290..5424bd921a7b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
> @@ -660,13 +660,12 @@ static int reserve_bo_and_vm(struct kgd_mem *mem,
>   
>   	ret = ttm_eu_reserve_buffers(&ctx->ticket, &ctx->list,
>   				     false, &ctx->duplicates);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ctx->reserved = true;
> -	else {
> -		pr_err("Failed to reserve buffers in ttm\n");
> +	if (ret) {
> +		pr_err("Failed to reserve buffers in ttm.\n");
>   		kfree(ctx->vm_pd);
>   		ctx->vm_pd = NULL;
> -	}
> +	} else
> +		ctx->reserved = true;

That is still not correct coding style. In general when one branch of an 
if/else uses {} the other one should use it as well.

But I agree with Felix that this change looks rather superfluous to me 
as well.

Regards,
Christian.

>   
>   	return ret;
>   }
> @@ -733,15 +732,12 @@ static int reserve_bo_and_cond_vms(struct kgd_mem *mem,
>   
>   	ret = ttm_eu_reserve_buffers(&ctx->ticket, &ctx->list,
>   				     false, &ctx->duplicates);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		ctx->reserved = true;
> -	else
> -		pr_err("Failed to reserve buffers in ttm.\n");
> -
>   	if (ret) {
> +		pr_err("Failed to reserve buffers in ttm.\n");
>   		kfree(ctx->vm_pd);
>   		ctx->vm_pd = NULL;
> -	}
> +	} else
> +		ctx->reserved = true;
>   
>   	return ret;
>   }