On 25/06/2018 11:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
As we may cancel the ce->state allocation during context pinning (but
crucially after we mark ce as operational), that means we may be asked
to destroy a nonexistent ce->state. Given the choice in handing a
complex error path on pinning, and just ignoring the lack of state in
destroy, choice the latter for simplicity.
Reported-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index 33bc914c2ef5..97460ee25b7d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -1337,9 +1337,11 @@ static void execlists_schedule(struct i915_request *request,
static void execlists_context_destroy(struct intel_context *ce)
{
- GEM_BUG_ON(!ce->state);
GEM_BUG_ON(ce->pin_count);
+ if (!ce->state)
+ return;
+
intel_ring_free(ce->ring);
__i915_gem_object_release_unless_active(ce->state->obj);
}
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
