On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > On 28/09/16 12:33 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> >> --- >> I had a scan through the rest of pipe_resource allocations, and I think >> this is the only remaining one (besides r600_alloc_buffer_struct()) >> which was using MALLOC_STRUCT().. sorry 'bout that > > Note that the MALLOC_STRUCT here isn't relevant: > > >> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >> b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >> index 4747058..24dd92f 100644 >> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r300/r300_screen_buffer.c >> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ struct pipe_resource *r300_buffer_create(struct >> pipe_screen *screen, >> rbuf = MALLOC_STRUCT(r300_resource); >> >> rbuf->b.b = *templ; > > The pipe_resource::next field is copied in from the template here, so > the question is really whether the next field of the template is > initialized to NULL by all callers.
bleh.. right, ok, I guess I need to track down which callers aren't zero-initializing the templ. BR, -R _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
