Re: [PATCH] drm/core: Fail atomic IOCTL with no CRTC state but with signaling.

[Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>]

On 06/12/2017 07:08 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 09-06-17 om 23:30 schreef Andrey Grodzovsky:
>> Problem:
>> While running IGT kms_atomic_transition test suite i encountered
>> a hang in drmHandleEvent immidietly follwoing an atomic_commit.
>> After dumping the atomic state I relized that in this case there was
>> not even one CRTC attached to the state and only disabled
>> planes. This probably due to a commit which hadn't changed any property
>> which would require attaching crtc state. This means drmHandleEvent
>> will never wake up from read since without CRTC in atomic state
>> the event fd will not be singnaled.
>> This point to a bug in IGT but also DRM should gracefully
>> fail  such scenario so no hang on user side will happen.
>>
>> Fix:
>> Explicitly fail by failing atomic_commit early in
>> drm_mode_atomic_commit where such problem can be identified.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> Patch itself looks sane, but I'm worried about failing with -EINVAL when the same configuration with TEST_ONLY would otherwise succeed on it.
DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY flag is checked later, after this, so if this 
fails , test only will return EINVAL also.
> Not sure whether we should fail or not, since sending 0 events could still be considered success.
>
> I don't mind either way, but definitely something that should be discussed before applying.
Sending 0 events is no problem at all on it's own but if user provides 
DRM_MODE_PAGE_FLIP_EVENT in args
then when it becomes a problem , doesn't it mean he expects to receive 
at least one event ?

Thanks.