On 08/03/2017 14:50, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:45:16PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/03/2017 14:22, Chris Wilson wrote:
__i915_gem_request_started() asserts that the seqno is valid, but
i915_spin_request() was not checking before querying whether the request
had started.
Reported-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 754c9fd57649 ("drm/i915: Protect the request->global_seqno with the engine->timeline lock")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h
index 6fdfb801bcee..cb4e7f3e279e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h
@@ -348,6 +348,9 @@ static inline bool i915_spin_request(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
u32 seqno;
seqno = i915_gem_request_global_seqno(request);
+ if (!seqno)
+ return 0;
+
return (__i915_gem_request_started(request, seqno) &&
__i915_spin_request(request, seqno, state, timeout_us));
}
Looks equivalent to just calling i915_gem_request_started instead of
__i915_gem_request_started.
We want to pass the same seqno onto __i915_spin_request, but yeah, very
similar.
Ah yes, my bad.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
