On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:14:12PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Just like we do for the original exec()
>
> v2: move bo_gem declaration to the top of the function.
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> index 7303903..5287419 100644
> --- a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> +++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
> @@ -2185,10 +2185,14 @@ do_exec2(drm_intel_bo *bo, int used, drm_intel_context *ctx,
> unsigned int flags)
> {
> drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem = (drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *)bo->bufmgr;
> + drm_intel_bo_gem *bo_gem = (drm_intel_bo_gem *) bo;
> struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
> int ret = 0;
> int i;
>
> + if (bo_gem->has_error)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> switch (flags & 0x7) {
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -2259,8 +2263,7 @@ skip_execution:
> drm_intel_gem_dump_validation_list(bufmgr_gem);
>
> for (i = 0; i < bufmgr_gem->exec_count; i++) {
> - drm_intel_bo_gem *bo_gem =
> - (drm_intel_bo_gem *) bufmgr_gem->exec_bos[i];
> + bo_gem = (drm_intel_bo_gem *) bufmgr_gem->exec_bos[i];
Reusing bo_gem here is a little worrying as it would be very easy for
someone to add code to the end of the function thinking that bo_gem
still was the batch.
If we had
static inline drm_intel_bo_gem *to_bo_gem(drm_intel_bo *bo)
{
return (drm_intel_bo_gem *)bo;
}
then we can start doing one offs like
if (to_bo_gem(bo)->has_error) return -ENOMEM;
and of course
for (i = 0; i < bufmgr_gem->exec_count; i++) {
drm_intel_bo_gem *bo_gem = to_bo_gem(bufmgr_gem->exec_bos[i]);
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
