On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:12:29PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > Might be helpful for debugging places where userspace ends up boosting > > or waiting where it doesn't intend to. > > Might be feels a bit weak justification for a new tracepoint imo. Please > drum up more support. > > > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 6 ++++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_trace.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 9 +++++++-- > > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 86cf428..b03cb07 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -4209,8 +4209,10 @@ i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > > struct i915_vma *vma = i915_gem_obj_to_ggtt(obj); > > > > BUG_ON(!vma); > > - BUG_ON(vma->pin_count == 0); > > - BUG_ON(!i915_gem_obj_ggtt_bound(obj)); > > + if (WARN(vma->pin_count == 0, "bad pin count\n")) > > + return; > > + if (WARN(!i915_gem_obj_ggtt_bound(obj), "obj not bound\n")) > > + return; > > Separate patch. Can you please split it out with the usual "BUG_ON > considered harmful" commit message? I have argued that these represent extreme fail on the part of the programmer - you have left the hardware accessing random physical pages in the system, game over. I need a stronger argument than that because presumably Jesse did end up fixing whatever he did actually blow up. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
