| Message ID | 20230927102707.3935596-1-jouni.hogander@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915: Ignore set frontbuffer return value on release | expand |
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 01:27:07PM +0300, Jouni Högander wrote: > i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer returns set frontbuffer pointer. > When we are releasing frontbuffer we are clearing the pointer from > the object and the value can be ignored. > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > index d5540c739404..8ef0538813da 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static void frontbuffer_release(struct kref *ref) > > i915_ggtt_clear_scanout(obj); > > - i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); > + (void)i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); should we create a dedicated function for cleaning up task only? or maybe should we at least print some drm_err or drm_warn if return is not what we expect? > spin_unlock(&intel_bo_to_i915(obj)->display.fb_tracking.lock); > > i915_active_fini(&front->write); > -- > 2.34.1 >
On Wed, 2023-09-27 at 10:09 -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 01:27:07PM +0300, Jouni Högander wrote: > > i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer returns set frontbuffer pointer. > > When we are releasing frontbuffer we are clearing the pointer from > > the object and the value can be ignored. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > > index d5540c739404..8ef0538813da 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c > > @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static void frontbuffer_release(struct kref > > *ref) > > > > i915_ggtt_clear_scanout(obj); > > > > - i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); > > + (void)i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); > > should we create a dedicated function for cleaning up task only? > or maybe should we at least print some drm_err or drm_warn if return > is not what we expect? Thank you Rodrigo for checking my patch. Just sent a new version addressing your comment. Please check. BR, Jouni Högander > > > spin_unlock(&intel_bo_to_i915(obj)- > > >display.fb_tracking.lock); > > > > i915_active_fini(&front->write); > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c index d5540c739404..8ef0538813da 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static void frontbuffer_release(struct kref *ref) i915_ggtt_clear_scanout(obj); - i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); + (void)i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer(obj, NULL); spin_unlock(&intel_bo_to_i915(obj)->display.fb_tracking.lock); i915_active_fini(&front->write);
i915_gem_object_set_frontbuffer returns set frontbuffer pointer. When we are releasing frontbuffer we are clearing the pointer from the object and the value can be ignored. Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_frontbuffer.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)