On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:05:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >+bool gem_create__has_stolen_support(int fd)
> >+{
> >+ static int has_stolen_support = -1;
> >+
> >+ if (has_stolen_support < 0) {
> >+ struct drm_i915_getparam gp;
> >+ int val = -1;
> >+ memset(&gp, 0, sizeof(gp));
> >+ gp.param = 36; /* CREATE_VERSION */
> >+ gp.value = &val;
> >+
> >+ /* Do we have the extended gem_create_ioctl? */
> >+ ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp);
> >+ has_stolen_support = val >= 1;
>
> If ioctl fails it will declare stolen support. (val remains -1)
>
> I would also suggest "has_stolen_support = val > 1" as clearer.
Tvrtko, -ENOCOFFEE? :)
> >+ struct local_i915_gem_create_v2 create;
> >+ int ret;
> >+
> >+ memset(&create, 0, sizeof(create));
> >+ create.handle = 0;
> >+ create.size = size;
> >+ create.flags = I915_CREATE_PLACEMENT_STOLEN;
> >+ ret = drmIoctl(fd, LOCAL_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CREATE, &create);
> >+
> >+ if (ret < 0)
> >+ return 0;
> >+
> >+ errno = 0;
> >+ return create.handle;
> >+}
> >+
> >+
>
> Interestingly gem_create_stolen copies implementation from
> __gem_create and differs from normal gem_create in handling of ioctl
> failure. But it removes the double underscore from the name. I think
> this creates unnecessary inconsistency. It should either have double
> underscore prefix or copy implementation from gem_create.
Right, I have been using gem_(*) for abort-on-failure, and __gem_*() for
propagate the error back to the caller. I would like that idiom become
more common.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
