On 28/10/15 12:08, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote:
From: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com>A call to i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin is being made after this, which again calls the get_pages function. Hence removing the redundant call to get_pages. Signed-off-by: Ankitprasad Sharma <ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c index 792d0b9..30237e2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c @@ -649,11 +649,6 @@ static struct drm_i915_gem_object *gem_allocate_guc_obj(struct drm_device *dev, if (!obj) return NULL; - if (i915_gem_object_get_pages(obj)) { - drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base); - return NULL; - } - if (i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(obj, PAGE_SIZE, PIN_OFFSET_BIAS | GUC_WOPCM_TOP)) { drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
I suppose it is technically redundant, but it's actually quite difficult to verify that the call to i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin() *will* actually take the path that, *six levels deeper*, includes the call to i915_gem_object_get_pages().
Is there any advantage to calling i915_gem_object_get_pages() later (or later)? Does it improve/worsen the chances of hitting a failure path? Handling an error from get_pages here is simple, whereas it looks like backing out of a failure in the middle of (six levels of) ggtt_pin might not be?
.Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
