From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] drm/i915: Allow late allocation of
	request for i915_add_request()
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:56:41 +0100
Message-ID: <1342115811_2017@CP5-2952>
References: <1342106019-17806-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1342106019-17806-2-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20120712174347.GL5039@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C467A0F8F
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120712174347.GL5039@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:43:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:13:34PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >  	ret = ring->add_request(ring, &seqno);
> >  	if (ret)
> > -	    return ret;
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	if (request == NULL) {
> > +		request = kmalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +		if (request == NULL)
> > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > +	}
> 
> Hm, shouldn't we try to allocate the request struct before we emit the
> request? Otherwise looks good.

I considered the ordering immaterial so went with the cleanest error
path.

If the allocation fails after we add the breadcrumb, we will then reuse
the olr for further batches.... Oops.

I was wrong, it matters.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre