[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:59:31PM +, Eric Engestrom wrote: > On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom > > wrote: > > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile: > > >> > > >> > > >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/d

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Jani, > > On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > The issue here is that printk can't format the fourcc as a string by >> > itself. There's a bunch of places in the kernel where a si

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

Hi Jani, On Thursday 10 Nov 2016 12:30:09 Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote: >

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote: >> On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote: >> > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compi

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

Hi Eric, On Wednesday 09 Nov 2016 16:59:31 Eric Engestrom wrote: > On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile: > > >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o > > >>

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 14:13:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom > wrote: > >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile: > >> > >> > >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o > >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function > >> ‘drm_atomic_

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Eric Engestrom wrote: >> Well, had to drop it again since it didn't compile: >> >> >> CC [M] drivers/gpu/drm/drm_blend.o >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c: In function ‘drm_atomic_plane_print_state’: >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c:920:5: error: too few argume

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wednesday, 2016-11-09 02:13:25 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing > > > its signature, causin

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 02:09:16AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote: > > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing > > its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without > > realising they were

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: move allocation out of drm_get_format_name()

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:17:52AM +, Eric Engestrom wrote: > The function's behaviour was changed in 90844f00049e, without changing > its signature, causing people to keep using it the old way without > realising they were now leaking memory. > Rob Clark also noticed it was also allocating GFP