* Re: [PATCH v1] mailbox: mchp-ipc-sbi: fix uninitialized symbol and other smatch warnings
2025-12-18 10:33 [PATCH v1] mailbox: mchp-ipc-sbi: fix uninitialized symbol and other smatch warnings Valentina Fernandez
@ 2025-12-18 11:23 ` Dan Carpenter
2025-12-18 11:35 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-01-18 20:53 ` Jassi Brar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2025-12-18 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valentina Fernandez; +Cc: jassisinghbrar, conor.dooley, linux-kernel, lkp
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 10:33:59AM +0000, Valentina Fernandez wrote:
> Fix uninitialized symbol 'hartid' warning in mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr()
> by introducing a 'found' flag to track whether the IRQ matches any
> online hart. If no match is found, return IRQ_NONE.
>
> Also fix other smatch warnings by removing dead code in
> mchp_ipc_startup() and by returning -ENODEV in dev_err_probe() if the
> Microchip SBI extension is not found.
>
> Fixes below smatch warnings:
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:187 mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr() error: uninitialized symbol 'hartid'.
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:324 mchp_ipc_startup() warn: ignoring unreachable code.
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:422 mchp_ipc_probe() warn: passing zero to 'dev_err_probe'
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202512171533.CDLdScMY-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@microchip.com>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c | 21 +++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> index d444491a584e..b87bf2fb4b9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> @@ -174,17 +174,21 @@ static irqreturn_t mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr(int irq, void *data)
> struct mchp_ipc_msg ipc_msg;
> struct mchp_ipc_status status_msg;
> int ret;
> - unsigned long hartid;
> u32 i, chan_index, chan_id;
> + bool found = false;
>
> /* Find out the hart that originated the irq */
> for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> - hartid = cpuid_to_hartid_map(i);
> - if (irq == ipc->cluster_cfg[i].irq)
> + if (irq == ipc->cluster_cfg[i].irq) {
> + found = true;
> break;
> + }
> }
>
> - status_msg.cluster = hartid;
> + if (unlikely(!found))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
This one is a false positive because obviously there is going to be
at least one online cpu. I would prefer to silence this in Smatch.
Generally, you should ignore static checker false positives.
regards,
dan carpenter
From 3a2a0587208ca2f720cf170c1c9b84d155e87316 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:17:36 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] kernel: add some more once_through macros
These macro loops always iterate at least once.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
check_kernel.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/check_kernel.c b/check_kernel.c
index 0db972637aa2..03d1982db49c 100644
--- a/check_kernel.c
+++ b/check_kernel.c
@@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ static bool delete_pci_error_returns(struct expression *expr)
return false;
}
-static bool match_with_intel_runtime(struct statement *stmt)
+static bool match_once_through_macros(struct statement *stmt)
{
char *macro;
@@ -774,7 +774,10 @@ static bool match_with_intel_runtime(struct statement *stmt)
return false;
if (strncmp(macro, "with_intel_runtime", 18) == 0 ||
strncmp(macro, "with_intel_display", 18) == 0 ||
- strcmp(macro, "drm_exec_until_all_locked") == 0)
+ strcmp(macro, "drm_exec_until_all_locked") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(macro, "xe_validation_guard") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(macro, "for_each_gt") == 0 ||
+ strcmp(macro, "for_each_online_cpu") ==0)
return true;
return false;
}
@@ -821,7 +824,7 @@ void check_kernel(int id)
add_function_hook("closure_call", &match_closure_call, NULL);
add_function_hook("put_device", &match_put_device, NULL);
- add_once_through_hook(&match_with_intel_runtime);
+ add_once_through_hook(&match_once_through_macros);
add_hook(fix_msecs_to_jiffies, ASSIGNMENT_HOOK_AFTER);
add_hook(&match_kernel_param, BASE_HOOK);
--
2.51.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v1] mailbox: mchp-ipc-sbi: fix uninitialized symbol and other smatch warnings
2025-12-18 10:33 [PATCH v1] mailbox: mchp-ipc-sbi: fix uninitialized symbol and other smatch warnings Valentina Fernandez
2025-12-18 11:23 ` Dan Carpenter
@ 2026-01-18 20:53 ` Jassi Brar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jassi Brar @ 2026-01-18 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valentina Fernandez; +Cc: conor.dooley, dan.carpenter, linux-kernel, lkp
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 4:35 AM Valentina Fernandez
<valentina.fernandezalanis@microchip.com> wrote:
>
> Fix uninitialized symbol 'hartid' warning in mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr()
> by introducing a 'found' flag to track whether the IRQ matches any
> online hart. If no match is found, return IRQ_NONE.
>
> Also fix other smatch warnings by removing dead code in
> mchp_ipc_startup() and by returning -ENODEV in dev_err_probe() if the
> Microchip SBI extension is not found.
>
> Fixes below smatch warnings:
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:187 mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr() error: uninitialized symbol 'hartid'.
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:324 mchp_ipc_startup() warn: ignoring unreachable code.
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c:422 mchp_ipc_probe() warn: passing zero to 'dev_err_probe'
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202512171533.CDLdScMY-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Valentina Fernandez <valentina.fernandezalanis@microchip.com>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c | 21 +++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> index d444491a584e..b87bf2fb4b9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-mchp-ipc-sbi.c
> @@ -174,17 +174,21 @@ static irqreturn_t mchp_ipc_cluster_aggr_isr(int irq, void *data)
> struct mchp_ipc_msg ipc_msg;
> struct mchp_ipc_status status_msg;
> int ret;
> - unsigned long hartid;
> u32 i, chan_index, chan_id;
> + bool found = false;
>
> /* Find out the hart that originated the irq */
> for_each_online_cpu(i) {
> - hartid = cpuid_to_hartid_map(i);
> - if (irq == ipc->cluster_cfg[i].irq)
> + if (irq == ipc->cluster_cfg[i].irq) {
> + found = true;
> break;
> + }
> }
>
> - status_msg.cluster = hartid;
> + if (unlikely(!found))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +
> + status_msg.cluster = cpuid_to_hartid_map(i);
> memcpy(ipc->cluster_cfg[i].buf_base, &status_msg, sizeof(struct mchp_ipc_status));
>
> ret = mchp_ipc_sbi_send(SBI_EXT_IPC_STATUS, ipc->cluster_cfg[i].buf_base_addr);
> @@ -321,13 +325,6 @@ static int mchp_ipc_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> goto fail_free_buf_msg_rx;
> }
>
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(ipc->dev, "failed to register interrupt(s)\n");
> - goto fail_free_buf_msg_rx;
> - }
> -
> - return ret;
> -
> fail_free_buf_msg_rx:
> kfree(chan_info->msg_buf_rx);
> fail_free_buf_msg_tx:
> @@ -419,7 +416,7 @@ static int mchp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> ret = sbi_probe_extension(SBI_EXT_MICROCHIP_TECHNOLOGY);
> if (ret <= 0)
> - return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Microchip SBI extension not detected\n");
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "Microchip SBI extension not detected\n");
>
> ipc = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ipc), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ipc)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Applied to mailbox/for-next.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread