On 30/09/16 03:55 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: >>> On 28/09/16 12:33 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> I had a scan through the rest of pipe_resource allocations, and I think >>>> this is the only remaining one (besides r600_alloc_buffer_struct()) >>>> which was using MALLOC_STRUCT().. sorry 'bout that >>> >>> Note that the MALLOC_STRUCT here isn't relevant: >>> >>> >>>> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>>> b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>>> index 4747058..24dd92f 100644 >>>> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>>> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >>>> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct pipe_resource *r300_buffer_create(struct >>>> pipe_screen *screen, >>>> rbuf = MALLOC_STRUCT(r300_resource); >>>> >>>> rbuf->b.b = *templ; >>> >>> The pipe_resource::next field is copied in from the template here, so >>> the question is really whether the next field of the template is >>> initialized to NULL by all callers. >> >> bleh.. right, ok, I guess I need to track down which callers aren't >> zero-initializing the templ. > > or do: next = NULL; in all drivers?
Yeah, I suspect that'll be easier. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
