On 10/27/2015 02:01 PM, samuel.pitoiset wrote:
On 27/10/2015 12:52, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 27 October 2015 at 10:50, samuel.pitoiset
<samuel.pitoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/10/2015 11:37, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 22 October 2015 at 00:16, Julien Isorce <julien.iso...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The real fix is in nouveau_drm_winsys.c by setting dev to 0.
Which means dev's ownership has been passed to previous call.
Other changes are there to be consistent with what the
screen_create functions already do on errors.
Encountered this crash because nvc0_screen_create sometimes fails
with:
nvc0_screen_create:717 - Error allocating PGRAPH context for M2MF:
-16
Also see: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70354
Signed-off-by: Julien Isorce <j.iso...@samsung.com>
---
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv30/nv30_screen.c | 5 ++++-
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/nv50_screen.c | 4 +++-
src/gallium/winsys/nouveau/drm/nouveau_drm_winsys.c | 2 ++
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv30/nv30_screen.c
b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv30/nv30_screen.c
index 0330164..9b8ddac 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv30/nv30_screen.c
+++ b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv30/nv30_screen.c
@@ -425,8 +425,10 @@ nv30_screen_create(struct nouveau_device *dev)
unsigned oclass = 0;
int ret, i;
- if (!screen)
+ if (!screen) {
+ nouveau_device_del(&dev);
return NULL;
+ }
Imho having these in screen_create() seems like the wrong 'layer'.
Shouldn't one call nouveau_device_dev() from within
nouveau_drm_screen_unref
and explicitly call the latter if the calloc() (here and in
nv50/nvc0)
fails ?
We can't do that because nouveau_drm_screen_unref() needs a valid
nouveau_screen
object and in this case it is NULL.
Ouch I was under the impression that we've brought back the concept of
winsys in nouveau with the hash_table patches. Seems like we haven't
:(
If we are to do so (split things just like the radeon/amdgpu winsys)
then we can kill two birds with one stone. The missing device_del() on
calloc failure as well as other error paths in nvxx_screen_create().
Okay, I'll have a look at how radeon/amdgpu split those things.
Well, this doesn't seem to be "trivial" to do it properly actually.
This is on my todolist (but not with a top priority) so, if someone
else want to send a patch for this stuff, feel free to do it. :)
I agree that it's not really an elegant fix but we don't really have
the
choice actually.
In my opinion, this is not that bad.
I never said it's "bad" just the wrong place for the fix. Or in other
words - if we're to fix things might as well do it properly :-)
Sure, I agree. :)
-Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
