Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] drm/msm/debugfs: cleanup.h scope.lock access and shadowing in msm_gpu_open() --
commit 320eeedaaf2618e89f113d51dc4647a97f5a4d17 Author: Rob Clark <[email protected]> drm/msm/debugfs: Use cleanup.h for gpu state dump This commit converts msm_gpu_open() in drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_debugfs.c to use cleanup.h helpers (__free, scoped_guard, and scoped_cond_guard) instead of goto-based error handling. > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_debugfs.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_debugfs.c > index d05307bfa1235..e1b872576c7b1 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_debugfs.c > @@ -70,43 +70,36 @@ static int msm_gpu_open(struct inode *inode, struct file > *file) > struct drm_device *dev = inode->i_private; > struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private; > struct msm_gpu *gpu = priv->gpu; > - struct msm_gpu_show_priv *show_priv; > int ret; > > if (!gpu || !gpu->funcs->gpu_state_get) > return -ENODEV; > > - show_priv = kmalloc_obj(*show_priv); > + struct msm_gpu_show_priv *show_priv __free(kfree) > + = kmalloc_obj(*show_priv); > if (!show_priv) > return -ENOMEM; > > - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&gpu->lock); > - if (ret) > - goto free_priv; > - > - pm_runtime_get_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev); > - msm_gpu_hw_init(gpu); > - show_priv->state = gpu->funcs->gpu_state_get(gpu); > - pm_runtime_put_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev); > - > - mutex_unlock(&gpu->lock); > + scoped_guard (pm_runtime_active, &gpu->pdev->dev) { > + scoped_cond_guard (mutex_intr, return PTR_ERR(scope.lock), > &gpu->lock) { > + msm_gpu_hw_init(gpu); > + show_priv->state = gpu->funcs->gpu_state_get(gpu); > + } > + } [Severity: Low] In msm_gpu_open(), both __scoped_guard() and __scoped_cond_guard() in include/linux/cleanup.h expand to for-loops that declare a local variable named scope: #define __scoped_guard(_name, _label, args...) \ for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); ... #define __scoped_cond_guard(_name, _fail, _label, args...) \ for (CLASS(_name, scope)(args); true; ({ goto _label; })) \ if (!__guard_ptr(_name)(&scope)) { ... Nesting scoped_cond_guard() inside scoped_guard() causes the inner scope declaration to shadow the outer one, which triggers a -Wshadow warning when building with W=2. In addition, passing return PTR_ERR(scope.lock) as the failure statement reaches into the internal macro variable scope and the internal .lock field where DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1_COND_4() stores ERR_PTR(_RET) on lock acquisition failure. Could this return -EINTR directly (or use ACQUIRE()/ACQUIRE_ERR()) instead of referencing scope.lock, and avoid nesting the two scoped guard macros? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=3
