On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 07:25:00PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > We should never insert the invalid seqno into the wait tree, so assert > we do not. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> -Michał > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > index 6cfffa68f71a..bb985bfc279c 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > @@ -396,6 +396,8 @@ static bool __intel_engine_add_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, > bool first, armed; > u32 seqno; > > + GEM_BUG_ON(!wait->seqno); > + > /* Insert the request into the retirement ordered list > * of waiters by walking the rbtree. If we are the oldest > * seqno in the tree (the first to be retired), then > -- > 2.15.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
