On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > When mapping the buffer a second time, we need to use the new pointer, > not the one from the previous mapping. Otherwise, we will most likely > crash. > > Apparently, we've just been getting lucky and getting the same > bo->virtual pointer in both cases. libdrm probably has a hand in that. > > Signed-off-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> > Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org > --- > src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c > b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c > index b04bd8f..bbbb76f 100644 > --- a/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c > +++ b/src/mesa/drivers/dri/i965/intel_extensions.c > @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ can_do_pipelined_register_writes(struct brw_context *brw) > > /* Check whether the value got written. */ > drm_intel_bo_map(brw->batch.workaround_bo, false); > + data = brw->batch.workaround_bo->virtual; > bool success = data[offset] == expected_value; > drm_intel_bo_unmap(brw->batch.workaround_bo); > > @@ -145,6 +146,7 @@ can_write_oacontrol(struct brw_context *brw) > > /* Check whether the value got written. */ > drm_intel_bo_map(brw->batch.workaround_bo, false); > + data = brw->batch.workaround_bo->virtual; > bool success = data[offset] == expected_value; > drm_intel_bo_unmap(brw->batch.workaround_bo); > > -- > 2.1.2 > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Nice catch. Reviewed-by: Anuj Phogat <anuj.pho...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
