On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:32:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:28:26PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 04:08:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:03:08PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 01:59:46PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > Internal requirement for the alignment is that it must be a > > > > > power-of-two, so enforce rejection at the user interface to execbuffer > > > > > (which allows the caller to specify a stricter-than-expected alignment > > > > > criterion). > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > That sounds right in general and I could find at least one instance > > > > where we rely on alignment being a power of two (eb_vma_misplaced() and > > > > vma->node.start & (entry->alignment - 1)) > > > > > > > > so: > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Needs a nasty igt I think ... Do we have? Applied meanwhile. > > > > Sure, we can demonstrate a bug in the current code that would not > > realign an object to the arbitrary alignment requested by the user. > > Just checking that the kernel rejects non-pot alignment should be good > enough. No need imo to write a _that_ nasty igt ;-) Nah, we will probably fix our pot requirement (given a usecase), so just that the kernel fails to adhere to the user's request without throwing an error is the bug. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
