On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0530, akash.goel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -974,6 +1108,13 @@ int i915_gem_context_setparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> return PTR_ERR(ctx);
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Take a reference also, as in certain cases we have to release &
> + * reacquire the struct_mutex and we don't want the context to
> + * go away.
> + */
> + i915_gem_context_reference(ctx);
> +
> switch (args->param) {
> case I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_BAN_PERIOD:
> if (args->size)
> @@ -992,10 +1133,14 @@ int i915_gem_context_setparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> ctx->flags |= args->value ? CONTEXT_NO_ZEROMAP : 0;
> }
> break;
> + case I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_TRTT:
> + ret = intel_context_set_trtt(ctx, args);
> + break;
> default:
> ret = -EINVAL;
> break;
> }
> + i915_gem_context_unreference(ctx);
> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
Having applied the safety net with the nice comment to setparam, we
should do the same for getparam for consistency. It just makes it easier
for us to keep extending the ioctls in future.
With that,
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
