On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Nanley Chery <nanleych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 05:28:12PM -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> > Cc: "12.0 13.0" <mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
> > ---
> > src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > index 5393144..8055893 100644
> > --- a/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > +++ b/src/intel/vulkan/anv_device.c
> > @@ -1258,6 +1258,11 @@ VkResult anv_MapMemory(
> > if (size == VK_WHOLE_SIZE)
> > size = mem->bo.size - offset;
> >
> > + if (size == 0) {
>
> The user isn't allowed to make such a call. Does this fix a CTS test?
>
Heh, so they aren't. It doesn't fix anything, it just ensures that you
never hit the ioctl with a size of zero. How about I replace it with an
assert?
> > + *ppData = NULL;
> > + return VK_SUCCESS;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* FIXME: Is this supposed to be thread safe? Since vkUnmapMemory()
> only
> > * takes a VkDeviceMemory pointer, it seems like only one map of the
> memory
> > * at a time is valid. We could just mmap up front and return an
> offset
> > --
> > 2.5.0.400.gff86faf
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mesa-dev mailing list
> > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
