Aaron Watry <awa...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 5:24 PM Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> Aaron Watry <awa...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > From CL 1.2 Section 5.2.1: >> > CL_INVALID_VALUE if buffer was created with CL_MEM_HOST_WRITE_ONLY >> and >> > flags specify CL_MEM_HOST_READ_ONLY , or if buffer was created with >> > CL_MEM_HOST_READ_ONLY and flags specify CL_MEM_HOST_WRITE_ONLY , or >> if >> > buffer was created with CL_MEM_HOST_NO_ACCESS and flags specify >> > CL_MEM_HOST_READ_ONLY or CL_MEM_HOST_WRITE_ONLY . >> > >> > Fixes CL 1.2 CTS test/api get_buffer_info >> > >> >> What combination of flags is the test-case providing for both the >> parent and sub buffer? >> > > The original motivation for this was a CTS test that was creating a sub > buffer with flags of: > CL_MEM_HOST_NO_ACCESS | CL_MEM_READ_WRITE > > With a parent buffer created as: > CL_MEM_HOST_READ_ONLY | CL_MEM_READ_WRITE > > Which according to my reading of the spec should be allowed. >
Right, I see.
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Watry <awa...@gmail.com>
>> > Cc: Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net>
>> > ---
>> > src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/api/memory.cpp | 8 ++++++--
>> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/api/memory.cpp
>> b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/api/memory.cpp
>> > index 9b3cd8b1f5..451e8a8c56 100644
>> > --- a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/api/memory.cpp
>> > +++ b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/api/memory.cpp
>> > @@ -57,10 +57,14 @@ namespace {
>> > parent.flags() &
>> host_access_flags) |
>> > (parent.flags() & host_ptr_flags));
>> >
>> > - if (~flags & parent.flags() &
>> > - ((dev_access_flags & ~CL_MEM_READ_WRITE) |
>> host_access_flags))
>> > + if (~flags & parent.flags() & (dev_access_flags &
>> ~CL_MEM_READ_WRITE))
>> > throw error(CL_INVALID_VALUE);
>> >
I think you want to keep the hunk above and then do something along the
lines of:
+ if (!(flags & CL_MEM_HOST_NO_ACCESS) &&
+ (~flags & parent.flags() & host_access_flags))
+ throw error(CL_INVALID_VALUE);
>> > + //Check if new host access flags cause a mismatch between
>> host-read/write-only.
>> > + const cl_mem_flags new_flags = flags & ~(parent.flags()) &
>> ~CL_MEM_HOST_NO_ACCESS;
>> > + if (new_flags & host_access_flags & parent.flags())
>> > + throw error (CL_INVALID_VALUE);
>> > +
>>
>> This doesn't look correct to me, the condition will always evaluate to
>> zero, you're calculating the conjunction of ~parent.flags() and
>> parent.flags() which is zero, so the error will never be emitted.
>>
>
> I'll see what I can do. I agree with a fresh reading that it looks fishy at
> best.
>
> --Aaron
>
>>
>> > return flags;
>> >
>> > } else {
>> > --
>> > 2.14.1
>>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
