|SUCCESS| bus/fslmc: fix shadowed variables in queue storage macros

[dpdklab at iol.unh.edu]

Test-Label: ai-code-review
Test-Status: SUCCESS
https://dpdk.org/patch/162886

_AI Code Review_

=== Patch Review: series.patch (via Claude) ===
Review date: 2026-04-07

commit bbeccd8fc300c0da2a5e7df15ab4c3f4a9fb4289
Author: Weijun Pan <wpan36 at wisc.edu>

bus/fslmc: fix shadowed variables in queue storage macros

The queue storage allocation and free macros declare local variables
named ret and i, which shadow local variables in
rte_dpaa2_create_dpci_device() and trigger -Wshadow warnings.

Rename the macro-local variables to avoid shadowing without changing
behavior.

> diff --git a/drivers/bus/fslmc/portal/dpaa2_hw_pvt.h b/drivers/bus/fslmc/portal/dpaa2_hw_pvt.h
> index e625a5c035..bbeccd8fc3 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/fslmc/portal/dpaa2_hw_pvt.h
> +++ b/drivers/bus/fslmc/portal/dpaa2_hw_pvt.h
> @@ -204,33 +204,33 @@ struct swp_active_dqs {
>  
>  #define dpaa2_queue_storage_alloc(q, num) \
>  ({ \
> -	int ret = 0, i; \
> +	int qs_ret = 0, qs_idx; \

This macro uses a statement expression construct, is this compatible
with C99 and C11 standards that DPDK supports? Although GCC and clang
support statement expressions as an extension, the coding style guide
emphasizes portable C code.

> [ ... ]

> @@ -204,33 +204,33 @@ struct swp_active_dqs {
>  #define dpaa2_queue_storage_alloc(q, num) \
>  ({ \
> -	int ret = 0, i; \
> +	int qs_ret = 0, qs_idx; \
>  	\
> -	for (i = 0; i < (num); i++) { \
> -		(q)->q_storage[i] = rte_zmalloc(NULL, \
> +	for (qs_idx = 0; qs_idx < (num); qs_idx++) { \
> +		(q)->q_storage[qs_idx] = rte_zmalloc(NULL, \
>  			sizeof(struct queue_storage_info_t), \
>  			RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE); \
> -		if (!(q)->q_storage[i]) { \
> -			ret = -ENOBUFS; \
> +		if (!(q)->q_storage[qs_idx]) { \
> +			qs_ret = -ENOBUFS; \

When rte_zmalloc() fails here, does this code leak previously allocated
q_storage[0..qs_idx-1]? The loop breaks without freeing already
allocated storage entries.

Similarly, when dpaa2_alloc_dq_storage() fails below, does this leak
both the q_storage[qs_idx] allocated from rte_zmalloc() and any
q_storage[0..qs_idx-1] allocated in prior iterations?

>  			break; \
>  		} \
> -		ret = dpaa2_alloc_dq_storage((q)->q_storage[i]); \
> -		if (ret) \
> +		qs_ret = dpaa2_alloc_dq_storage((q)->q_storage[qs_idx]); \
> +		if (qs_ret) \
>  			break; \
>  	} \
> -	ret; \
> +	qs_ret; \
>  })