On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> If ttm_bo_init fails it will already call ttm_bo_put, so we don't have to
> do it through nouveau_bo_ref.
>
> ==
> BUG: KFENCE: use-after-free write in
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:56:29AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > If ttm_bo_init fails it will already call ttm_bo_put, so we don't have to
> > do it through nouveau_bo_ref.
> >
> >
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 09:32:44AM -0400, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:19:02AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:56:29AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > > > If ttm_bo_init fails it
On Sun, 16 May 2021, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Remove include statements for DRM legacy headers. None of these
> dependencies is required. Built-tested w/o CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY set.
>
> These patches should probably go through drm-misc, like the rest
> of the legacy cleanups.
Acked-by: Jani Nikula
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:17 AM Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:56:29AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > > If ttm_bo_init fails it will already call ttm_bo_put, so we don't have to
> > > do it through
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:19:02AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:56:29AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 06:35:53PM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
> > > If ttm_bo_init fails it will already call ttm_bo_put, so we don't have to
> > > do it through
On Monday, May 17th, 2021 at 8:16 PM, Nieto, David M
wrote:
> Btw is DRM_MAJOR 226 consider uapi? I don't see it in uapi headers.
It's not in the headers, but it's de facto uAPI, as seen in libdrm:
> git grep 226
xf86drm.c
99:#define DRM_MAJOR 226 /* Linux */
[Public]
Cycling some of the Nvidia/nouveau guys here too.
I think there is a benefit on trying to estandarize how fdinfo can be used to
expose per engine and device memory utilization.
Another of the advantages of going the /proc/ way instead of the sysfs debugfs
approach is that you inherit
Hi, Alistair,
The overall patch looks good to me, however I have a few comments or questions
inlined below.
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:35PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> Some devices require exclusive write access to shared virtual
> memory (SVM) ranges to perform atomic operations on that
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 06:42:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> +static inline struct page *pfn_swap_entry_to_page(swp_entry_t entry)
> +{
> + struct page *p = pfn_to_page(swp_offset(entry));
> +
> + /*
> + * Any use of migration entries may only occur while the
> + *
10 matches
Mail list logo
