Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190805140119.7337-1-kraxel@redhat.com> <20190805140119.7337-9-kraxel@redhat.com>
 <20190813151115.GA29955@ulmo> <20190814055827.6hrxj6daovxxnnvw@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
 <20190814093524.GA31345@ulmo> <20190814101411.lj3p6zjzbjvnnjf4@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
 <CACAvsv5Rar9F=Wf-9HBpndY4QaQZcGCx05j0esvV9pitM=JoGg@mail.gmail.com> <20190821115523.GA21839@ulmo>
In-Reply-To: <20190821115523.GA21839@ulmo>
From:   Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Sat, 7 Sep 2019 21:58:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKb7UvjXq0ptiPYu5EGH6sJAbbRjN3X4f_knrxyOHD1Zi7P1BA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v6 08/17] drm/ttm: use gem vma_node
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ben Skeggs <skeggsb@gmail.com>,
        ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        ML nouveau <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        amd-gfx mailing list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
        spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:55 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 04:33:58PM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 20:14, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   Hi,
> > >
> > > > > Changing the order doesn't look hard.  Patch attached (untested, have no
> > > > > test hardware).  But maybe I missed some detail ...
> > > >
> > > > I came up with something very similar by splitting up nouveau_bo_new()
> > > > into allocation and initialization steps, so that when necessary the GEM
> > > > object can be initialized in between. I think that's slightly more
> > > > flexible and easier to understand than a boolean flag.
> > >
> > > Yes, that should work too.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > Acked-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks guys, applied to drm-misc-next.

Hi Thierry,

Initial investigations suggest that this commit currently in drm-next

commit 019cbd4a4feb3aa3a917d78e7110e3011bbff6d5
Author: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed Aug 14 11:00:48 2019 +0200

    drm/nouveau: Initialize GEM object before TTM object

breaks nouveau userspace which tries to allocate GEM objects with a
non-page-aligned size. Previously nouveau_gem_new would just call
nouveau_bo_init which would call nouveau_bo_fixup_align before
initializing the GEM object. With this change, it is done after. What
do you think -- OK to just move that bit of logic into the new
nouveau_bo_alloc() (and make size/align be pointers so that they can
be fixed up?)

Cheers,

  -ilia