On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 03:48:42PM +0530, Nareshkumar Gollakoti wrote: > The variable "fence" should be initialized to NULL, > and any usage of fence should be guarded > by a check to ensure it is not NULL >
I sent some replies to wrong list, see those but from Rodrigo: 'fixup in the commit subject is absolutely no no! This is a git indication that the patch should be squashed to the one introducing the error, but we are in a non-rebasing branch. So you need to provide a fix as a new patch and using the proper tags indicating which patch it is fixing and Cc'ing author and reviewer of the original patch.' You kinda ignored this feedback on the resend too... Matt > Signed-off-by: Nareshkumar Gollakoti <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pagefault.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pagefault.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pagefault.c > index afb06598b6e1..401f1835939b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pagefault.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pagefault.c > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static int xe_pagefault_handle_vma(struct xe_gt *gt, struct > xe_vma *vma, > struct xe_tile *tile = gt_to_tile(gt); > struct xe_validation_ctx ctx; > struct drm_exec exec; > - struct dma_fence *fence; > + struct dma_fence *fence = NULL; > int err, needs_vram; > > lockdep_assert_held_write(&vm->lock); > @@ -122,8 +122,10 @@ static int xe_pagefault_handle_vma(struct xe_gt *gt, > struct xe_vma *vma, > } > } > > - dma_fence_wait(fence, false); > - dma_fence_put(fence); > + if (fence) { > + dma_fence_wait(fence, false); > + dma_fence_put(fence); > + } > > unlock_dma_resv: > xe_validation_ctx_fini(&ctx); > -- > 2.43.0 >
