On pe, 2016-04-22 at 12:59 +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 22/04/16 11:57, Matthew Auld wrote:
> >
> > From: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Propagate the real error from drm_gem_object_init(). Note this also
> > fixes some confusion in the error return from i915_gem_alloc_object...
> >
> > v2:
> > (Matthew Auld)
> > - updated new users of gem_alloc_object from latest drm-nightly
> > - replaced occurrences of IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with IS_ERR()
> > v3:
> > (Joonas Lahtinen)
> > - fix double "From:" in commit message
> > - add goto teardown path
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_render_state.c | 7 +++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 10 ++++++----
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > 10 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index 261a3ef..c6c17dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -382,8 +382,8 @@ i915_gem_create(struct drm_file *file,
> >
> > /* Allocate the new object */
> > obj = i915_gem_alloc_object(dev, size);
> > - if (obj == NULL)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + if (IS_ERR(obj))
> > + return PTR_ERR(obj);
> >
> > ret = drm_gem_handle_create(file, &obj->base, &handle);
> > /* drop reference from allocate - handle holds it now */
> > @@ -4498,15 +4498,15 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object *i915_gem_alloc_object(struct drm_device *dev,
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > struct address_space *mapping;
> > gfp_t mask;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > obj = i915_gem_object_alloc(dev);
> > if (obj == NULL)
> > - return NULL;
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> The two changes above looked really really confusing, where one tests
> the returned pointer and returns it if it's an ERR_PTR, and the other
> tests for NULL and returns ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM).
>
> Then I realised one was i915_gem_alloc_object() and the other was
> i915_gem_object_alloc()!
Yep, noticed that a few days ago too, +1 on correcting it.
Regards, Joonas
>
> Can we please get rid of one or the other? Since we generally use
> subsystem_class_action naming, I'd suggest keeping (the low-level
> memory-allocator) i915_gem_object_alloc(), and renaming the high-level
> i915_gem_alloc_object() to i915_gem_object_create() or similar.
>
> >
> > - if (drm_gem_object_init(dev, &obj->base, size) != 0) {
> > - i915_gem_object_free(obj);
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
> > + ret = drm_gem_object_init(dev, &obj->base, size);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto fail;
> >
> > mask = GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE;
> > if (IS_CRESTLINE(dev) || IS_BROADWATER(dev)) {
> > @@ -4543,6 +4543,11 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object *i915_gem_alloc_object(struct drm_device *dev,
> > trace_i915_gem_object_create(obj);
> Oh and BTW i915_gem_alloc_object() already calls itself
> i915_gem_object_create() in trace messages!
>
> .Dave.
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
