[PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Unpin the context in the LRC garbage test

[PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Unpin the context in the LRC garbage test

[Wentao Liang]

garbage() explicitly pins the context to corrupt its register state, but
only releases that pin when request creation fails. On success, its caller
waits for the request and drops the context reference without unpinning.
The request's own context pin does not account for this extra pin.

Release the explicit pin immediately after creating the request, on both
success and failure. A successful request already holds the context pin
it needs until retirement, as in the other context selftests.

Fixes: 24eba7a9981d ("drm/i915/selftests: Check recovery from corrupted LRC")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c | 11 +++--------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
index 23f04f6f8fba..314922e778a8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c
@@ -1782,18 +1782,13 @@ static struct i915_request *garbage(struct intel_context *ce,
 			    LRC_STATE_OFFSET);
 
 	rq = intel_context_create_request(ce);
-	if (IS_ERR(rq)) {
-		err = PTR_ERR(rq);
-		goto err_unpin;
-	}
+	intel_context_unpin(ce);
+	if (IS_ERR(rq))
+		return rq;
 
 	i915_request_get(rq);
 	i915_request_add(rq);
 	return rq;
-
-err_unpin:
-	intel_context_unpin(ce);
-	return ERR_PTR(err);
 }
 
 static int __lrc_garbage(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, struct rnd_state *prng)
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Unpin the context in the LRC garbage test

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 08:04:34 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> garbage() explicitly pins the context to corrupt its register state, but
> only releases that pin when request creation fails. On success, its caller
> waits for the request and drops the context reference without unpinning.
> The request's own context pin does not account for this extra pin.
> 
> Release the explicit pin immediately after creating the request, on both
> success and failure. A successful request already holds the context pin
> it needs until retirement, as in the other context selftests.
> 
> Fixes: 24eba7a9981d ("drm/i915/selftests: Check recovery from corrupted LRC")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_lrc.c | 11 +++--------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.

2. You use multiple identities with this email address, thus I doubt that we
   speak with an actual person.

3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?

4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.

5. Finally, the same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document the issue discovery method and what was
or was not tested.

Best regards,
Krzysztof