On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:29:12 +0600, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Yes, no real problem with current code. I was just thinking from code >> cleanup's pov. Is BUG_ON really needed in i915_add_request() ? > > No, just documentation as a reminder that the request should be > preallocated, ideally so that we can fail gracefully without touching > hardware and leaving it in an inconsistent state wrt to our bookkeeping. > (This is more apparent in the overlay code which could hang the > chip/driver if we hit a malloc error too late.) > > The BUG_ON has certainly outlived its usefulness. Actually, I'm not seeing how BUG_ON could trigger (though, I've wrongly mentioned in previous thread, if request == NULL, BUG_ON could trigger), it's usefulness will never come into action. Other callers of i915_add_request also makes sure that, it gets called only if (request). Although, kfree(NULL) is permitted, we shouldn't use it unnecessarily. Anyway, since the issue is not a big deal and no real bug, it could be droped. Thanks, Rakib _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
