On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 04:43:22PM +0000, John Harrison wrote:
> On 13/02/2015 13:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:08:59PM +0000, John Harrison wrote:
> >>>@@ -1155,40 +1154,30 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer_parse(struct intel_engine_cs *ring,
> >>> batch_start_offset,
> >>> batch_len,
> >>> is_master);
> >>>- if (ret) {
> >>>- if (ret == -EACCES)
> >>>- return batch_obj;
> >>>- } else {
> >>>- struct i915_vma *vma;
> >>>+ if (ret)
> >>>+ goto err;
> >>>- memset(shadow_exec_entry, 0, sizeof(*shadow_exec_entry));
> >>>+ ret = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(shadow_batch_obj, 0, 0);
> >>There is no explicit unpin for this. Does it happen automatically
> >>due to adding the vma to the eb->vmas list?
> >We set the exec_flag that tells us to unpin the obj when unwinding the
> >execbuf.
> >>Also, does it matter that it will be pinned again (and explicitly
> >>unpinned) if the SECURE flag is set?
> >No, pin/unpin is just a counter, it just needs to be balanced. (Long
> >answer, yes, the restrictions given to both pin requests much match or
> >else we will attempt to repin the buffer and fail miserably as the
> >object is already pinned.)
> >-Chris
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-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
