On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > +static void *kmap_atomic_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, unsigned long page_num)
>> > +{
>> > + struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv;
>> > + struct page *page = ubuf->pages[page_num];
>> > +
>> > + return kmap_atomic(page);
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static void *kmap_udmabuf(struct dma_buf *buf, unsigned long page_num)
>> > +{
>> > + struct udmabuf *ubuf = buf->priv;
>> > + struct page *page = ubuf->pages[page_num];
>> > +
>> > + return kmap(page);
>> > +}
>>
>> The above leaks like mad since no kunamp?
>
> /me checks code. Oops. Yes.
>
> The docs say map() is required and unmap() is not (for both atomic and
> non-atomic cases), so I assumed there is a default implementation just
> doing kunmap(page). Which is not the case. /me looks a bit surprised.
>
> I'll fix it for v4.
>
>> Also I think we have 0 users of the kmap atomic interfaces ... so not sure
>> whether it's worth it to implement those.
>
> Well, the docs are correct. kmap_atomic() is required, dma-buf.c calls
> the function pointer without checking it exists beforehand ...
Frankly with the pletoria of dummy kmap functions that just return
NULL; it might be better to move that into core dma-buf code and make
it optional for real. Since it's indeed very surprising.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
