Re: [PATCH] drm/tinydrm: mipi-dbi: Fix unbalanced DMA access

[David Lechner]

On 08/01/2017 03:14 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> If we return here and import_attach is true, then dma_buf_end_cpu_access()
> will not be called balance dma_buf_begin_cpu_access().
>
> Fix by setting ret instead of returning.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c
> index c83eeb7..e10fa4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tinydrm/mipi-dbi.c
> @@ -183,7 +183,8 @@ static int mipi_dbi_buf_copy(void *dst, struct drm_framebuffer *fb,
>   		dev_err_once(fb->dev->dev, "Format is not supported: %s\n",
>   			     drm_get_format_name(fb->format->format,
>   						 &format_name));
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		break;
>   	}
>   
>   	if (import_attach)


I just realized that the next line here can mask ret.


	if (import_attach)
		ret = dma_buf_end_cpu_access(import_attach->dmabuf,
					     DMA_FROM_DEVICE);

So, we should either ignore the return value from 
dma_buf_end_cpu_access() always or add some logic to ignore it if ret is 
already an error.

In some of the other patches I have been sending, we have the same 
situation. I those, I have opted to just ignore the return value from 
dma_buf_end_cpu_access(). e.g...


	if (import_attach)
		dma_buf_end_cpu_access(import_attach->dmabuf, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);

Is this a reasonable thing to do?