Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] drm/qxl: unpin release objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> > 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,

>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,
 	if (qdev->current_release_bo_offset[cur_idx] + 1 >= releases_per_bo[cur_idx]) {
+		qxl_bo_unpin(qdev->current_release_bo[cur_idx]);
 		qdev->current_release_bo_offset[cur_idx] = 0;
 		qdev->current_release_bo[cur_idx] = NULL;

Spice-devel mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]