From: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Propagate error from drm_gem_object_init()
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:44:54 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1461332694.28225.1.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <571A122F.7000109@intel.com>
On pe, 2016-04-22 at 12:59 +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 22/04/16 11:57, Matthew Auld wrote:
> >
> > From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >
> > Propagate the real error from drm_gem_object_init(). Note this also
> > fixes some confusion in the error return from i915_gem_alloc_object...
> >
> > v2:
> > (Matthew Auld)
> > - updated new users of gem_alloc_object from latest drm-nightly
> > - replaced occurrences of IS_ERR_OR_NULL() with IS_ERR()
> > v3:
> > (Joonas Lahtinen)
> > - fix double "From:" in commit message
> > - add goto teardown path
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_batch_pool.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_render_state.c | 7 +++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 10 ++++++----
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > 10 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index 261a3ef..c6c17dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -382,8 +382,8 @@ i915_gem_create(struct drm_file *file,
> >
> > /* Allocate the new object */
> > obj = i915_gem_alloc_object(dev, size);
> > - if (obj == NULL)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + if (IS_ERR(obj))
> > + return PTR_ERR(obj);
> >
> > ret = drm_gem_handle_create(file, &obj->base, &handle);
> > /* drop reference from allocate - handle holds it now */
> > @@ -4498,15 +4498,15 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object *i915_gem_alloc_object(struct drm_device *dev,
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > struct address_space *mapping;
> > gfp_t mask;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > obj = i915_gem_object_alloc(dev);
> > if (obj == NULL)
> > - return NULL;
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> The two changes above looked really really confusing, where one tests
> the returned pointer and returns it if it's an ERR_PTR, and the other
> tests for NULL and returns ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM).
>
> Then I realised one was i915_gem_alloc_object() and the other was
> i915_gem_object_alloc()!
Yep, noticed that a few days ago too, +1 on correcting it.
Regards, Joonas
>
> Can we please get rid of one or the other? Since we generally use
> subsystem_class_action naming, I'd suggest keeping (the low-level
> memory-allocator) i915_gem_object_alloc(), and renaming the high-level
> i915_gem_alloc_object() to i915_gem_object_create() or similar.
>
> >
> > - if (drm_gem_object_init(dev, &obj->base, size) != 0) {
> > - i915_gem_object_free(obj);
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
> > + ret = drm_gem_object_init(dev, &obj->base, size);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto fail;
> >
> > mask = GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_RECLAIMABLE;
> > if (IS_CRESTLINE(dev) || IS_BROADWATER(dev)) {
> > @@ -4543,6 +4543,11 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object *i915_gem_alloc_object(struct drm_device *dev,
> > trace_i915_gem_object_create(obj);
> Oh and BTW i915_gem_alloc_object() already calls itself
> i915_gem_object_create() in trace messages!
>
> .Dave.
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-22 13:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-22 10:57 [PATCH] drm/i915: Propagate error from drm_gem_object_init() Matthew Auld
2016-04-22 11:59 ` Dave Gordon
2016-04-22 13:44 ` Joonas Lahtinen [this message]
2016-04-24 6:57 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-04-25 12:32 [PATCH] " Matthew Auld
2015-09-23 11:32 [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: Propagating correct error codes to the userspace Chris Wilson
2015-09-23 13:14 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: Propagate error from drm_gem_object_init() Chris Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1461332694.28225.1.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=david.s.gordon@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox