On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > intel_engine_cs *ring) >> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; >> unsigned long flags; >> >> + WARN_ON(!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)); > > Please no. This would be a BUG(). No BUG if not doing it means the driver will survive for a bit longer. And doing a few bogus register writes usually means it'll surive. Similar checks I've added just recently to pipestate_enable/disable caught a bug in the resume code. Using a BUG instead of WARN would have meant some serious debugging, but as-is a look at the backtrace was all that was needed to analyze the bug. I know a lot of developers disagree, but debugging random crap in the field is _so_ much easier with WARN than BUG that it's not even up for discussion imo. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
