Re: [PATCH 3/6] drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc_signal() return code

[Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:56:57PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
> 
> in the subject /dma_fenc_signal/dma_fence_signal/
> 
> > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> >  {
> >  	struct xe_hw_fence *fence, *next;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> > -	int err;
> >  	bool tmp;
> >  
> >  	if (XE_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&irq->pending))) {
> > @@ -93,9 +92,9 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> >  		spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
> >  		list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
> >  			list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> > -			err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> 
> why don't we do
> 
> XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_signal_locked(..))
> 

IIRC the above statement can compile out. So the patch looks correct to me.

Matt

> instead?
> 
> Andi
> 
> > +			XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(&fence->dma));
> > +			dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> >  			dma_fence_put(&fence->dma);
> > -			XE_WARN_ON(err);
> >  		}
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
> >  		dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp);
> > -- 
> > 2.49.0
> >