Hi,
On 07/22/2015 02:51 PM, ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
Extend the drm_i915_gem_create structure to add support for
creating Stolen memory backed objects. Added a new flag through
which user can specify the preference to allocate the object from
stolen memory, which if set, an attempt will be made to allocate
the object from stolen memory subject to the availability of
free space in the stolen region.
v2: Rebased to the latest drm-intel-nightly (Ankit)
v3: Changed versioning of GEM_CREATE param, added new comments (Tvrtko)
Testcase: igt/gem_stolen
Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 3 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
index c5349fa..bfb07ab 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
@@ -167,6 +167,9 @@ static int i915_getparam(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
value = i915.enable_hangcheck &&
intel_has_gpu_reset(dev);
break;
+ case I915_PARAM_CREATE_VERSION:
+ value = 2;
+ break;
default:
DRM_DEBUG("Unknown parameter %d\n", param->param);
return -EINVAL;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index fc434ae..9e7e182 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -391,7 +391,8 @@ static int
i915_gem_create(struct drm_file *file,
struct drm_device *dev,
uint64_t size,
- uint32_t *handle_p)
+ uint32_t *handle_p,
+ uint32_t flags)
{
struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
int ret;
@@ -401,8 +402,31 @@ i915_gem_create(struct drm_file *file,
if (size == 0)
return -EINVAL;
+ if (flags & ~(I915_CREATE_PLACEMENT_STOLEN))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
/* Allocate the new object */
- obj = i915_gem_alloc_object(dev, size);
+ if (flags & I915_CREATE_PLACEMENT_STOLEN) {
+ mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+ obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev, size);
Is the compiler not complaining that "uint64_t size" is being passed
into "u32 size" here?
Either since there are no checks, can't userspace overflow u32 with a
right value and get success and much smaller object than intended?
Perhaps should test with an IGT.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
