On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 10:44:17 +0600, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:23:06 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Indeed, nice catch (albeit totally unlikely to be hit, because the error > >> only happens when the gpu ceases to progress in the ring, so imo not > >> stable material). Keith, please pick this up for fixes, thanks. > > > > It's already there and queued for airlied :-) > > > Thank you guys for reviewing and taking the patch. > > Now, while I was looking at the uses of i915_add_request(), I found > the following code : > > ret = i915_gem_flush_ring(ring, 0, > I915_GEM_GPU_DOMAINS); > request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); > if (ret || request == NULL || > i915_add_request(ring, NULL, request)) > kfree(request); > > From above code, we might ended up by calling kfree(request) without > allocating request. Though, it's unlikely cause if request is NULL > then BUG_ON will be hit in i915_add_request(). So, to unify the callee > uses of i915_add_request(), I'm proposing the following patch. Please > let me know what do you guys think. If you guys agree, I can sent a > formal patch. kfree(NULL) is permitted and taken advantage of here along with the short-circuiting behaviour of '||'. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
