Am 23.04.2017 um 15:36 schrieb Pan Bian: > From: Pan Bian <bianpan2016 at 163.com> > > Function radeon_ring_lock() returns an errno on failure, and its return > value should be validated. However, in functions r420_cp_errata_init() > and r420_cp_errata_fini(), its return value is not checked. This patch > adds the checks. > > Signed-off-by: Pan Bian <bianpan2016 at 163.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r420.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r420.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r420.c > index 2828605..a8c2b37 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r420.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r420.c > @@ -215,7 +215,8 @@ static void r420_cp_errata_init(struct radeon_device *rdev) > * of the CP init, apparently. > */ > radeon_scratch_get(rdev, &rdev->config.r300.resync_scratch); > - radeon_ring_lock(rdev, ring, 8); > + if (radeon_ring_lock(rdev, ring, 8)) > + return; Nice that somebody wants to clean that up, but just returning here is not a good idea. Additional to that radeon_ring_lock() can only fail if we try to allocate to many dw (impossible with only 8) or the hardware is crashed and then it doesn't matter anyway. I suggest to just add a WARN_ON() here. Regards, Christian. > radeon_ring_write(ring, PACKET0(R300_CP_RESYNC_ADDR, 1)); > radeon_ring_write(ring, rdev->config.r300.resync_scratch); > radeon_ring_write(ring, 0xDEADBEEF); > @@ -229,7 +230,8 @@ static void r420_cp_errata_fini(struct radeon_device *rdev) > /* Catch the RESYNC we dispatched all the way back, > * at the very beginning of the CP init. > */ > - radeon_ring_lock(rdev, ring, 8); > + if (radeon_ring_lock(rdev, ring, 8)) > + return; > radeon_ring_write(ring, PACKET0(R300_RB3D_DSTCACHE_CTLSTAT, 0)); > radeon_ring_write(ring, R300_RB3D_DC_FINISH); > radeon_ring_unlock_commit(rdev, ring, false);
