[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

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

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_KERNEL memory in atomic contexts, breaking them. Instead of having to