[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: change node clearing from memset to initialization

[Joe Perches]

On Sat, 2022-04-16 at 13:48 -0700, Tom Rix wrote:
> On 4/16/22 11:33 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sat, 2022-04-16 at 13:23 -0400, Tom Rix wrote:
> > > In insert_mappable_node(), the parameter node is
> > > cleared late in node's use with memset.
> > > insert_mappable_node() is a singleton, called only
> > > from i915_gem_gtt_prepare() which itself is only
> > > called by i915_gem_gtt_pread() and
> > > i915_gem_gtt_pwrite_fast() where the definition of
> > > node originates.
> > > 
> > > Instead of using memset, initialize node to 0 at it's
> > > definitions.
> > trivia: /it's/its/
> > 
> > Only reason _not_ to do this is memset is guaranteed to
> > zero any padding that might go to userspace.
> > 
> > But it doesn't seem there is any padding anyway nor is
> > the struct available to userspace.
> > 
> > So this seems fine though it might increase overall code
> > size a tiny bit.
> > 
> > I do have a caveat: see below:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > []
> > > @@ -328,7 +327,6 @@ static struct i915_vma *i915_gem_gtt_prepare(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > >   		goto err_ww;
> > >   	} else if (!IS_ERR(vma)) {
> > >   		node->start = i915_ggtt_offset(vma);
> > > -		node->flags = 0;
> > Why is this unneeded?
> 
> node = {} initializes all of node's elements to 0, including this one.

true, but could the call to insert_mappable_node combined with the
retry goto in i915_gem_gtt_prepare set this to non-zero?