On 05/03/2018 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
complete.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
if (rq) {
dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
i915_request_put(rq);
}
What's the motivation? There is a i915_seqno_passed check a few lines
above. So there would have to be a confusion in internal breadcrumbs
state for this to be possible. In which case I'd rather put the assert
in breadcrumbs code. For instance in intel_wait_check_request, asserting
that the seqno in wait matches the seqno in wait->request.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
