On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Michel Dänzer <michel at daenzer.net> wrote: > On 2018-07-17 08:14 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> Michel, I think you are wasting your time. This change can be misused >> as easily as any other API. It's not more dangerous that any other >> amdgpu libdrm function. > > That's trivially false. > >> You won't achieve anything by optimizing the hash table (= losing time), >> [...] > > I think you're focusing too much on your immediate desire instead of the > big(ger) picture. > > E.g. I see amdgpu_bo_export getting called from surprising places (in > Xorg), performing a hash table lookup each time. Fixing that would > achieve something, though probably not much. I know about the use in Xorg and this patch actually indirectly mentions it (it mentions Glamor in the code). The flag contains _noimport to self-document itself to mitigate incorrect usage. > > Anyway, adding dangerous API (keep in mind that we don't control all > libdrm_amdgpu users, or even know how they're using it) for something > that can also be achieved without is just a bad idea. Avoiding that is > achievement enough. We don't need to control other libdrm users. They can control themselves. :) I'm totally fine with incorrect usage leading to bad things, like any other bug. Much worse things can be done with the CS ioctl. Marek
