On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:37:19PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 09/10/15 13:19, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:11:47PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>On 09/10/15 12:51, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>If the impossible happens and we fail to rebind a VMA in the middle of > >>>rebinding all VMA for an object we currently bail out and leave the > >>>object in an inconsistent state. Attempt to unwind the incomplete update > >>>by reverting all updated VMA back to the original cache-level, and WARN > >>>if that fails. > >> > >>Hey a BUG_ON would have been more your style! ;) > > > >Propagating error returns trumps throwing a tantrum and then as we are > >on the the error path we've already proved the impossible could happen, > >so presume it could happen again. > > No no, just a BUG_ON(i915_bind_vma()) on the original call site > would suffice since it cannot happen anyway. ;> > > For the same reason it is safe to skip the current entry when > reversing I suppose. > > But it is still code to handle something which can't happen. If you > want to stuff it under future proofing you can have my r-b, but hope > someone who doesn't like future proofing notices. :) Maybe I should say nothing is impossible with i915_gem_gtt.c :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
