On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:54:41PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: > On 29/04/15 17:10, yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This is to avoid bad IO access caused by writing NOOP to wrap the > > ring buffer whilst ring is unpinned. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > > index 732fd63..3e8fcfd 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > > @@ -803,12 +803,12 @@ static int intel_logical_ring_begin(struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf, > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - ret = logical_ring_prepare(ringbuf, ctx, num_dwords * sizeof(uint32_t)); > > + /* Preallocate the olr before touching the ring */ > > + ret = i915_gem_request_alloc(ring, ctx); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > - /* Preallocate the olr before touching the ring */ > > - ret = i915_gem_request_alloc(ring, ctx); > > + ret = logical_ring_prepare(ringbuf, ctx, num_dwords * sizeof(uint32_t)); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > Reviewed-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> > > with input also from John Harrison <john.c.harrison@xxxxxxxxx>, who > would like to point out that this will be superceded by the Anti-OLR > patches already posted. (In that model, the request will be allocated > much earlier, and passed around explicitly rather than dangling from the > context). Do we need this for execlist in general, i.e. cc: stable? Where's the bug report/igt testcase? For serious-looking bugs please add more details like that to the commit message, otherwise maintainers have no idea where to apply a patch. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
