On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:25:37PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:13:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > In commit 2e1b873072dfe3bbcc158a9c21acde1ab0d36c55 [v4.2] > > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon Apr 27 13:41:22 2015 +0100 > > > > drm/i915: Convert RPS tracking to a intel_rps_client struct > > > > we converted the __i915_wait_request() to take a new intel_rps_client > > struct (rather than having to pass fake drm_i915_file_private structs). > > However, due to use of passing a void pointer, I didn't spot one > > callsite in wait-ioctl was passing the wrong pointer. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Fwiw, the impact of this bug is zero. Along the rps path, we always > first call list_empty(rps) which when we pass in the wrong pointer > always evaluates to false and we return early and never chase the > invalid pointers. > > The user visible impact is then wait-ioctl doesn't get the same > waitboosting as the other interfaces (set-domain, throttle), which is a > performance concern for the *very* few users of the wait interface. > There is also a libdrm_intel patch to use the wait-ioctl for > drm_intel_bo_wait_rendering() if anyone feels inclined to review > libdrm_intel patches. I added this to the commit message and figured it's not 100% justified for -fixes. So applied to dinq. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
