On Thursday, 11 December 2025 12:24:31 CET Krzysztof Karas wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
[...]
@@ -3375,7 +3360,9 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, eb.exec = exec; eb.vma = (struct eb_vma *)(exec + args->buffer_count + 1);
- eb.vma[0].vma = NULL;
- memset(eb.vma, 0x00, args->buffer_count * sizeof(struct eb_vma));
- eb.batch_pool = NULL;
eb.invalid_flags = __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS; @@ -3584,7 +3571,16 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, if (err) return err;
- /* Allocate extra slots for use by the command parser */
- /*
* Allocate extra slots for use by the command parser.** Note that this allocation handles two different arrays (the* exec2_list array, and the eventual eb.vma array introduced in* i915_gem_do_execubuffer()), that reside in virtually contiguous* memory. Also note that the allocation doesn't fill the area with* zeros (the first part doesn't need to be), but the second part only* is explicitly zeroed later in i915_gem_do_execbuffer().I get the gist of this comment, but I think you could reword the last sentence: "Also note that the allocation doesn't fill the area with zeros, because it is unnecessary for exec2_list array, and eb.vma is explicitly zeroed later in i915_gem_do_execbuffer()."
My preferred wording would look something like this:
Also note that the allocation intentionally doesn't fill the area with zeros since the exec2_list array part is then fully overwritten with a copy of user data before use. However, the eb.vma array part is still expected to be initialized as needed by its user.
Thanks, Janusz
*/