On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:50:01PM -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> 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?
>
An assert or no assert is fine. The validation layers technically should
catch this for us.
>
> > > + *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
