From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
We should not allow this any more, as it will break with the new userptr
implementation, it could still be made to work, but there's no point in
doing so.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellst...@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c | 10 ++--------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 64a946d5f753..241f865077b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct
drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
struct i915_mmu_object *mo;
if (flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED)
- return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? 0 : -EPERM;
+ return -ENODEV;
if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj->userptr.mm))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -274,13 +274,7 @@ static int
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
unsigned flags)
{
- if ((flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) == 0)
- return -ENODEV;
-
- if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- return -EPERM;
-
- return 0;
+ return -ENODEV;
}
static void
--
2.26.2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
