From: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
We should not allow this any more, as it will break with the new userptr implementation, it could still be made to work, but there's no point in doing so.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Cc: Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c | 10 ++-------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c index 64a946d5f753..241f865077b9 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, struct i915_mmu_object *mo;
if (flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) - return capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ? 0 : -EPERM; + return -ENODEV;
if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj->userptr.mm)) return -EINVAL; @@ -274,13 +274,7 @@ static int i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, unsigned flags) { - if ((flags & I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED) == 0) - return -ENODEV; - - if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) - return -EPERM; - - return 0; + return -ENODEV; }
static void