In this post, I talk a little about my first steps to introduce myself to the DRM community, a Linux subsystem from which I am looking to learn more and develop skills.

In my opinion, sending contributions is the best way to start to fit in. We can also send questions or interact about an idea, but as nobody knows you there, showing your potential and your interest in practice leads to a more fluid relationship.

Well, I can say that a safe way to start contributing code to a subsystem of which we are little acquainted is by sending code style improvement patches. They are simple patches, and many believe that they have no relevance or translate into technical capacity. For me, they don’t reflect in technical ability; however, they break the first barriers of sending and communication and make it possible to gradually learn about how to modify a large volume of code.

With that in mind, I tried to contribute in three ways:

  1. some code style improvements;
  2. removing unused code; and
  3. fixing bugs

Improving code style

I can see two direct contributions generate for this kind of patch: getting rid of warnings (giving space to look to relevant problems), and improving the code readability lead to lot of good consequences for coworking remotely.

A good way to discover codestyle problems is using Even better is using kworkflow to guide you, since the tool has a option to check codestyle and to discover the maintainers responsible for the file (in case of sending contributions).

So, I sent a patcheset to clean up two functions in a AMD’s file that is full of code style problems:

[PATCH v2 0/2] drm/amd/display: dc_link: cleaning up some code style issues [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/amd/display: dc_link: code clean up on enable_link_dp function [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/amd/display: dc_link: code clean up on detect_dp function

Examples of code style issues include lines with more than 80 characteres, avoiding comparisons to NULL in conditional clauses, and alignment of parenthesis and indentations.

These simple patches call my attention for the branch that I was using for development. Since the file is maintained by AMD team, instead of using the drm-misc repository on the branch drm-misc-next, I should base on repository of Alex Deucher(agd5f/amdgpu). Asking him on IRC channel (#dri-devel) for the right branch to send my contribution, he said: drm-next. So, I needed to rebase my patch from drm-misc to the right branch.

Removing unused code

The 2017 Linux Kernel Development Report declared:

The kernel has grown steadily since its first release in 1991, when there were only about 10,000 lines of code. At almost 25 million lines (up from nearly 22 million), the kernel is almost three million lines larger than it was at the time of the previous version of this report.

Someone can think “Wow, it is great!”, but is important to noticed that large size is not direct related to power or potential. Lines of code need of maintainance, which in turn needs skilled developers and organization/management. So, unused code seems inoffencive, but it is not. It may affect maintainability and readability. Thinking in a house and in how terrible is living with a lot of trash or things that you no longer use in your life.

Even in the house analogy, when there is a messy room in your house, it is hard to clean up and decide what stay and what live. So, for getting rid of a unused code you need to check is someone still need it. In a large project like Linux, there are a lot of files and people involved. So, first, check the files that the stuff appears, and then send the removal as patch, and wait for someone claims the necessity of it.

Then, I sent a patch to remove an entire function from another AMD’s file.

[PATCH] drm/amd/display: dcn20: remove an unused function

This was a suggestion from Siqueira. However I also looking for apparison of this function in the whole project and also in the same file, as I didn’t find nothing, I removed and sent. Done!

Attempt to fix bugs

For me, fixing bugs is a small and punctual task, but very challenging. Often, it also requires a breadth of knowledge. Besides, it is a task that, when completed, brings satisfaction and some confidence.

I have tried to solve two mapped problems on vkms: a bug reported by the syzkaller and a bug found by an IGT test.

Bug reported by syzkaller

I have sent a e-mail for dri-vel mailing list asked for help. In this e-mail, I describe my attempts:

I tried to reproduce a syzkaller bug found in the vkms WARNING in vkms_gem_free_object However, I was not very successful in this task.

Looking at the bug history at, it seems like the bug still exists.

For testing, I used a VM (QEMU) with Debian 10 with a compiled kernel from (branch drm-misc-next)

  1. Using the usual .config for my VM, I compiled and installed the kernel and, as root, ran the C program provided by syzkaller: 1

  2. Then, I checked the debug/panic/hacking/drm/i915 debugging/vkms settings on the .config reported by syzkaller: 2 and enabled the same things in my .config. I compiled and installed the kernel and ran the C program. Nothing happened.

  3. So, I reverted my current branch to the commit that generated the bug (as reported: 94e2ec3f7fef86506293a448273b2b4ee21e6195) and used the kernel on that state. Nothing happened.

  4. I decided to use the syzkaller .config without modifications and adaptations for my VM (although I didn’t think it felt right). I compiled, installed… some boot problems happened, but the kernel worked. I ran the C program and nothing.

Daniel Vetter replied by saying that he also had no experience with syzkaller bug reports and that perhaps it would be better for me to seek guidance from the syzkaller community. I also asked Rodrigo Siqueira and he also had no previous experience in this.

An then I gave up… for a while :)

IGT test failure

So I pass to the next bug, some failure to compute the CRC with the transparent cursor. The kms_cursor_crc subtest (pipe-A-cursor-alpha-transparent) that checks the CRC when the cursor is transparent was failing, and everything indicated that it was a problem around the XRGB operation that ignored the alpha channel using the C memset function.

This bug took me a lot of time to comprehend the VKMS operations of drawing cursor, blending planes, and computing CRC, and also understand the steps of this IGT subtest until asserting values. See more about this situation in the next post.