> > Just calling ttm_bo_unpin() here makes lockdep unhappy.
>
> How does that one splat? But yeah if that's a problem should be
> explained in the comment. I'd then also only do a pin_count--; to make
> sure you can still catch other pin leaks if you have them. Setting it
> to 0 kinda defeats the warning.
Figured the unpin is at the completely wrong place while trying to
reproduce the lockdep splat ...
take care,
Gerd
>From 43befab4a935114e8620af62781666fa81288255 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:10:50 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drm/qxl: unpin release objects
Balances the qxl_create_bo(..., pinned=true, ...);
call in qxl_release_bo_alloc().
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c
index c52412724c26..28013fd1f8ea 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ int qxl_alloc_release_reserved(struct qxl_device *qdev, unsigned long size,
mutex_lock(&qdev->release_mutex);
if (qdev->current_release_bo_offset[cur_idx] + 1 >= releases_per_bo[cur_idx]) {
+ qxl_bo_unpin(qdev->current_release_bo[cur_idx]);
qxl_bo_unref(&qdev->current_release_bo[cur_idx]);
qdev->current_release_bo_offset[cur_idx] = 0;
qdev->current_release_bo[cur_idx] = NULL;
--
2.29.2
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
