On 28/10/15 12:08, ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
A call to i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin is being made after this, which again
calls the get_pages function. Hence removing the redundant call to
get_pages.
Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index 792d0b9..30237e2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -649,11 +649,6 @@ static struct drm_i915_gem_object *gem_allocate_guc_obj(struct drm_device *dev,
if (!obj)
return NULL;
- if (i915_gem_object_get_pages(obj)) {
- drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
- return NULL;
- }
-
if (i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(obj, PAGE_SIZE,
PIN_OFFSET_BIAS | GUC_WOPCM_TOP)) {
drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
I suppose it is technically redundant, but it's actually quite difficult
to verify that the call to i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin() *will* actually take
the path that, *six levels deeper*, includes the call to
i915_gem_object_get_pages().
Is there any advantage to calling i915_gem_object_get_pages() later (or
later)? Does it improve/worsen the chances of hitting a failure path?
Handling an error from get_pages here is simple, whereas it looks like
backing out of a failure in the middle of (six levels of) ggtt_pin might
not be?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
