On 5 January 2017 at 15:13, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:41:31PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
>> If we find a suitable victim node on our first pass, then ret
>> will be uninitialized which could lead to some funny business later.
>>
>> Fixes: 9332f3b1b99a ("drm/i915: Combine loops within i915_gem_evict_something")
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
>> index 50129ec1caab..19716548c455 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ i915_gem_evict_something(struct i915_address_space *vm,
>> }, **phase;
>> struct i915_vma *vma, *next;
>> struct drm_mm_node *node;
>> - int ret;
>> + int ret = 0;
>
> Please don't randomly initialise locals. It is meant to be initialised
> just prior to the unbind loop. It appears that my patches are
> out-of-order. :|
Oh, then I misread the intention of the code, sorry.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
