Am 23.07.2018 um 18:50 schrieb Michel Dänzer: > On 2018-07-19 05:39 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> >> >> The warning turned out to be not so useful, as BO destruction tends to >> be deferred to a workqueue. >> >> Also, we should be preventing any damage from this now, so not really >> important anymore to fix code doing this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> index b12526ce1a9d..3010f0136de9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static void amdgpu_ttm_bo_destroy(struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo) >> struct amdgpu_device *adev = amdgpu_ttm_adev(tbo->bdev); >> struct amdgpu_bo *bo = ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(tbo); >> >> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bo->pin_count > 0)) >> + if (bo->pin_count > 0) >> amdgpu_bo_subtract_pin_size(bo); >> >> if (bo->kfd_bo) >> > Any feedback? I'm a bit torn on that. On the one hand the backtrace at this point is not very useful, but on the other hand it would still be nice to have a warning. Maybe reduce it to a DRM_ERROR()? Christian.
