On Don, 2011-07-07 at 09:10 +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:

On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 09:38 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:

...

On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:16 +1000, skeggsb@gmail.com wrote:

...

From: Ben Skeggs bskeggs@redhat.com

Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs bskeggs@redhat.com

drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c | 15 +++++++++------ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c index 2022a5c..c3c87a1 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c @@ -397,13 +397,16 @@ int drm_irq_uninstall(struct drm_device *dev) /* * Wake up any waiters so they don't hang. */

• spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);
• for (i = 0; i < dev->num_crtcs; i++) {

• DRM_WAKEUP(&dev->vbl_queue[i]);
  

• dev->vblank_enabled[i] = 0;
  

• dev->last_vblank[i] = dev->driver->get_vblank_counter(dev, i);
  

• if (dev->num_crtcs) {

• spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);
  

• for (i = 0; i < dev->num_crtcs; i++) {
  

• 	DRM_WAKEUP(&dev->vbl_queue[i]);
  

• 	dev->vblank_enabled[i] = 0;
  

• 	dev->last_vblank[i] =
  

• 		dev->driver->get_vblank_counter(dev, i);
  

• }
  

• spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);
  

  }

• spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->vbl_lock, irqflags);

  if (!irq_enabled) return -EINVAL;

Makes sense, but according to commit 7a1c2f6c8d8485af5ac6c2a313f6a7162207a4af ('vmwgfx: Enable use of the vblank system'), the vblank ioctls will also access uninitialized data if drm_vblank_init() hasn't been called. So, is this just for cases where drm_irq_uninstall() is called before the driver gets a chance to call drm_vblank_init()?

Heh, ouch.

Yes, it was specifically that case I was aiming for however. If nouveau's running on a board without any outputs, it won't call drm_vblank_init(), but it *will* call drm_irq_*. Just avoiding lockdep complaints on module unload.

I see.

Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer michel@daenzer.net