commit b16999da214803a026d7246ec4aa62031e82dfc8
Author: Chris Wilson <email address hidden>
Date: Wed Oct 9 23:54:57 2013 +0100
sna: Upon unwinding operations, also check for exec objects to clear
If we cancel an operation after partially committing it, we may leave
the batch bookkeeping in an inconsistent state with an exec object with
a zero-length batch. Ordinarily, this would not be an issue as we could
pass the extra object to the next batch. However, if we switch rings, we
need to clear the extra objects as they are currently flagged as being
on the wrong ring, leading to hilarity.
Reported-by: Jiri Slaby <email address hidden>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <email address hidden>
I thought this was going to be related to
commit b16999da214803a 026d7246ec4aa62 031e82dfc8
Author: Chris Wilson <email address hidden>
Date: Wed Oct 9 23:54:57 2013 +0100
sna: Upon unwinding operations, also check for exec objects to clear
If we cancel an operation after partially committing it, we may leave
the batch bookkeeping in an inconsistent state with an exec object with
a zero-length batch. Ordinarily, this would not be an issue as we could
pass the extra object to the next batch. However, if we switch rings, we
need to clear the extra objects as they are currently flagged as being
on the wrong ring, leading to hilarity.
Reported-by: Jiri Slaby <email address hidden>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <email address hidden>
Maybe it still is...