Am 23.07.2018 um 18:50 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2018-07-19 05:39 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daen...@amd.com>
The warning turned out to be not so useful, as BO destruction tends to
be deferred to a workqueue.
Also, we should be preventing any damage from this now, so not really
important anymore to fix code doing this.
Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daen...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
index b12526ce1a9d..3010f0136de9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static void amdgpu_ttm_bo_destroy(struct ttm_buffer_object
*tbo)
struct amdgpu_device *adev = amdgpu_ttm_adev(tbo->bdev);
struct amdgpu_bo *bo = ttm_to_amdgpu_bo(tbo);
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bo->pin_count > 0))
+ if (bo->pin_count > 0)
amdgpu_bo_subtract_pin_size(bo);
if (bo->kfd_bo)
Any feedback?
I'm a bit torn on that. On the one hand the backtrace at this point is
not very useful, but on the other hand it would still be nice to have a
warning.
Maybe reduce it to a DRM_ERROR()?
Christian.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
