Am 18.09.2018 um 08:16 schrieb Zhu, Rex:
-----Original Message-----
From: amd-gfx <amd-gfx-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of
Christian König
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:07 AM
To: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: don't try to unreserve NULL pointer
Don't try to unreserve a BO we doesn't allocated.
Fixes: 07012fdd497e drm/amdgpu: don't allocate zero sized kernel BOs
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
index 84d82d5382f9..c1387efc0c91 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
@@ -348,7 +348,8 @@ int amdgpu_bo_create_kernel(struct amdgpu_device
*adev,
if (r)
return r;
- amdgpu_bo_unreserve(*bo_ptr);
+ if (*bo_ptr)
+ amdgpu_bo_unreserve(*bo_ptr);
return 0;
}
It is weird.
If we return true for allocate bo with size 0.
Does that mean we need to check all the bo_ptr before we use them.
No, allocating a BO with zero size doesn't make much sense and was
essentially undefined behavior previously.
So now we get a defined behavior, but not necessary the one you expected.
Is that only a rhetorical question or really a problem somewhere?
Regards,
Christian.
Best Regards
Rex
--
2.14.1
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
