This is a false positive, but I wonder if it is really necessary to put
the assignment in the conditional test expression.
julia
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:23:36 +0800
From: kbuild test robot <fengguang...@intel.com>
To: kbu...@01.org
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>
Subject: [PATCH] drm/nouveau/mmu: fix odd_ptr_err.cocci warnings
CC: kbuild-...@01.org
CC: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
TO: Ben Skeggs <bske...@redhat.com>
CC: David Airlie <airl...@linux.ie>
CC: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
CC: nouv...@lists.freedesktop.org
CC: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/uvmm.c:109:5-11: inconsistent IS_ERR
and PTR_ERR on line 110.
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/uvmm.c:109:5-11: inconsistent IS_ERR
and PTR_ERR on line 111.
PTR_ERR should access the value just tested by IS_ERR
Semantic patch information:
There can be false positives in the patch case, where it is the call to
IS_ERR that is wrong.
Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/tests/odd_ptr_err.cocci
Fixes: 920d2b5ef215 ("drm/nouveau/mmu: define user interfaces to mmu vmm
opertaions")
Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com>
---
Please take the patch only if it's a positive warning. Thanks!
uvmm.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/uvmm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/mmu/uvmm.c
@@ -107,8 +107,9 @@ nvkm_uvmm_mthd_map(struct nvkm_uvmm *uvm
return ret;
if (IS_ERR((memory = nvkm_umem_search(client, handle)))) {
- VMM_DEBUG(vmm, "memory %016llx %ld\n", handle, PTR_ERR(memory));
- return PTR_ERR(memory);
+ VMM_DEBUG(vmm, "memory %016llx %ld\n", handle,
+ PTR_ERR((memory = nvkm_umem_search(client, handle))));
+ return PTR_ERR((memory = nvkm_umem_search(client, handle)));
}
mutex_lock(&vmm->mutex);
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
