On Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com> wrote:
> Increment composite fence seqno on each fence creation.
>
> Fixes: 544460c33821 ("drm/i915: Multi-BB execbuf")
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index 2213f7b613da..96cf8361b017 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -3113,7 +3113,7 @@ eb_composite_fence_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb,
> int out_fence_fd)
> fence_array = dma_fence_array_create(eb->num_batches,
> fences,
>
> eb->context->parallel.fence_context,
> - eb->context->parallel.seqno,
> + eb->context->parallel.seqno++,
> false);
> if (!fence_array) {
> kfree(fences);
I have no idea what's going on, but the feeling I get from "code smells"
just in this small snippet is that the seqno++ does not take the error
path here into account.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
