Maybe you are looking at the wrong branch, but I see it in drm-next (it
has been there since Oct 10)
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~airlied/linux/commit/?h=drm-next&id=c245cb9e15055ed5dcf7eaf29232badb0059fdc1
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Michael Witten wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 19:20, Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:45:30 +0000
The value of RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES has been used to
specify the size of an array, each element of which looks
like this:
struct radeon_debugfs {
struct drm_info_list *files;
unsigned num_files;
};
Consequently, the number of debugfs files may be much greater
than RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES, something that the current
code ignores:
if ((_radeon_debugfs_count + nfiles) > RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES) {
DRM_ERROR("Reached maximum number of debugfs files.\n");
DRM_ERROR("Report so we increase RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES.\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
This commit fixes this mistake, and accordingly renames:
RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES
to:
RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_COMPONENTS
Signed-off-by: Michael Witten <mfwitten@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c | 13 ++++++++-----
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
index c1e056b..dd7bab9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ extern int radeon_pcie_gen2;
#define RADEON_FENCE_JIFFIES_TIMEOUT (HZ / 2)
/* RADEON_IB_POOL_SIZE must be a power of 2 */
#define RADEON_IB_POOL_SIZE 16
-#define RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES 32
+#define RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_COMPONENTS 32
#define RADEONFB_CONN_LIMIT 4
#define RADEON_BIOS_NUM_SCRATCH 8
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c
index b51e157..31b1f4b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c
@@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ struct radeon_debugfs {
struct drm_info_list *files;
unsigned num_files;
};
-static struct radeon_debugfs _radeon_debugfs[RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES];
+static struct radeon_debugfs _radeon_debugfs[RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_COMPONENTS];
static unsigned _radeon_debugfs_count = 0;
int radeon_debugfs_add_files(struct radeon_device *rdev,
@@ -996,14 +996,17 @@ int radeon_debugfs_add_files(struct radeon_device *rdev,
return 0;
}
}
- if ((_radeon_debugfs_count + nfiles) > RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES) {
- DRM_ERROR("Reached maximum number of debugfs files.\n");
- DRM_ERROR("Report so we increase RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_NUM_FILES.\n");
+
+ i = _radeon_debugfs_count + 1;
+ if (i > RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_COMPONENTS) {
+ DRM_ERROR("Reached maximum number of debugfs components.\n");
+ DRM_ERROR("Report so we increase "
+ "RADEON_DEBUGFS_MAX_COMPONENTS.\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
_radeon_debugfs[_radeon_debugfs_count].files = files;
_radeon_debugfs[_radeon_debugfs_count].num_files = nfiles;
- _radeon_debugfs_count++;
+ _radeon_debugfs_count = i;
#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
drm_debugfs_create_files(files, nfiles,
rdev->ddev->control->debugfs_root,
--
1.7.6.409.ge7a85
This patch has not yet been applied. What's wrong?
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
