drm/i915/execlists: Check for ce->state before destroy
As we may cancel the ce->state allocation during context pinning (but crucially after we mark ce as operational), that means we may be asked to destroy a nonexistent ce->state. Given the choice in handing a complex error path on pinning, and just ignoring the lack of state in destroy, choice the latter for simplicity. Reported-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20180625100604.22598-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1338,9 +1338,11 @@ static void execlists_schedule(struct i915_request *request,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
static void execlists_context_destroy(struct intel_context *ce)
|
static void execlists_context_destroy(struct intel_context *ce)
|
||||||
{
|
{
|
||||||
GEM_BUG_ON(!ce->state);
|
|
||||||
GEM_BUG_ON(ce->pin_count);
|
GEM_BUG_ON(ce->pin_count);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
if (!ce->state)
|
||||||
|
return;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
intel_ring_free(ce->ring);
|
intel_ring_free(ce->ring);
|
||||||
__i915_gem_object_release_unless_active(ce->state->obj);
|
__i915_gem_object_release_unless_active(ce->state->obj);
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user