Am 18.09.2018 um 08:16 schrieb Zhu, Rex: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of >> Christian König >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:07 AM >> To: amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org >> Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: don't try to unreserve NULL pointer >> >> Don't try to unreserve a BO we doesn't allocated. >> >> Fixes: 07012fdd497e drm/amdgpu: don't allocate zero sized kernel BOs >> >> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> index 84d82d5382f9..c1387efc0c91 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c >> @@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ int amdgpu_bo_create_kernel(struct amdgpu_device >> *adev, >> if (r) >> return r; >> >> - amdgpu_bo_unreserve(*bo_ptr); >> + if (*bo_ptr) >> + amdgpu_bo_unreserve(*bo_ptr); >> >> return 0; >> } > It is weird. > If we return true for allocate bo with size 0. > Does that mean we need to check all the bo_ptr before we use them. No, allocating a BO with zero size doesn't make much sense and was essentially undefined behavior previously. So now we get a defined behavior, but not necessary the one you expected. Is that only a rhetorical question or really a problem somewhere? Regards, Christian. > > Best Regards > Rex > >> -- >> 2.14.1 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> amd-gfx mailing list >> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
