Nouveau - Nov 2023 - [bug report] drm/nouveau/mmu/r535: initial support

On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 17:32 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> ??? 170???????? ret = gf100_bar_new_(rm, device, type, inst, &bar);
> --> 171???????? *pbar = bar;
> ??? 172???????? if (ret) {
> ??? 173???????????????? if (!bar)
> ??????????????????????????? ^^^^
> If gf100_bar_new_() fails then bar isn't initialized.? Do we really
> need to initialize bar to NULL on error?? If so then we should do it
> before the "rm = kzalloc()".
We can just do this:

struct nvkm_bar *bar = NULL;

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 03:06:27PM +0000, Timur Tabi
wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 17:32 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > ??? 170???????? ret = gf100_bar_new_(rm, device, type, inst,
&bar);
> > --> 171???????? *pbar = bar;
> > ??? 172???????? if (ret) {
> > ??? 173???????????????? if (!bar)
> > ??????????????????????????? ^^^^
> > If gf100_bar_new_() fails then bar isn't initialized.? Do we
really
> > need to initialize bar to NULL on error?? If so then we should do it
> > before the "rm = kzalloc()".
> 
> We can just do this:
> 
> struct nvkm_bar *bar = NULL;
I mean that will silence the warning, but why are we setting *pbar to
NULL?  If it's necessary then there is still a bug because the first
error path doesn't do it.  If not, then just do:

	ret = gf100_bar_new_(rm, device, type, inst, &bar);
	if (ret) {
		kfree(rm);
		return ret;
	}
	*pbar = bar;

It really depends on what we're doing with *pbar.  I looked at the
context before I sent the bug report and it kind of looked like this
function is dead code honestly...

regards,
dan carpenter