DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=SmMmIWWcXP501ZLbRNMKe9b/8ey0oDzksqy/moxgJjKjwW5wTHlo5I+V66YYih/nRE
         HtdIQWMnLocAFmUNMZoQtEcyNhGEE5zGdS6h9m2NyyVBiKidW5Aj4tMmvOlKbupazFAN
         xBlNQP/FXCz8Bxq2HAPTM4RvR/oGgxZknVKZQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1258723764-4399-3-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com>
References: <1258723764-4399-1-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com>
	 <1258723764-4399-2-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com>
	 <1258723764-4399-3-git-send-email-jglisse@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:10:23 +1000
Message-ID: <21d7e9970912031610s26055089o30a4c2824f50dbf3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/radeon/kms: Rework radeon object handling
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2504
Lines: 70

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> The locking & protection of radeon object was somewhat messy.
> This patch completely rework it to now use ttm reserve as a
> protection for the radeon object structure member. It also
> shrink down the various radeon object structure by removing
> field which were redondant with the ttm information. Last it
> converts few simple functions to inline which should with
> performances.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>


>
> ?int radeon_gem_busy_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> @@ -264,7 +261,7 @@ int radeon_gem_busy_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> ?{
> ? ? ? ?struct drm_radeon_gem_busy *args = data;
> ? ? ? ?struct drm_gem_object *gobj;
> - ? ? ? struct radeon_object *robj;
> + ? ? ? struct radeon_bo *robj;
> ? ? ? ?int r;
> ? ? ? ?uint32_t cur_placement;
>
> @@ -273,7 +270,7 @@ int radeon_gem_busy_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return -EINVAL;
> ? ? ? ?}
> ? ? ? ?robj = gobj->driver_private;
> - ? ? ? r = radeon_object_busy_domain(robj, &cur_placement);
> + ? ? ? r = radeon_bo_wait(robj, &cur_placement, true);

Here we pass an uninitialised cur_placement to busy ioctl.

> +static inline int radeon_bo_wait(struct radeon_bo *bo, u32 *mem_type,
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bool no_wait)
> +{
> + ? ? ? int r;
> +
> +retry:
> + ? ? ? r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, no_wait, false, 0);
> + ? ? ? if (unlikely(r != 0)) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (r == -ERESTART)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? goto retry;
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? dev_err(bo->rdev->dev, "%p reserve failed for wait\n", bo);
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return r;
> + ? ? ? }
> + ? ? ? spin_lock(&bo->tbo.lock);
> + ? ? ? if (mem_type)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? *mem_type = bo->tbo.mem.mem_type;
> + ? ? ? if (bo->tbo.sync_obj)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? r = ttm_bo_wait(&bo->tbo, true, true, no_wait);
> + ? ? ? spin_unlock(&bo->tbo.lock);
> + ? ? ? ttm_bo_unreserve(&bo->tbo);
> + ? ? ? if (unlikely(r == -ERESTART))
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? goto retry;
> + ? ? ? return r;
> +}

If this return early mem_type never gets set to anything useful.

The compiler warns on this here.

Can you send a fix up patch as I've merged this to drm-radeon-next already.

Dave.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/