Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(262)

Issue 2963433002: Add nullptr check for GpuProcessHost when allocating GpuMemoryBuffer

Created:
3 years, 5 months ago by ccameron
Modified:
3 years, 5 months ago
Reviewers:
Zhenyao Mo, reveman
CC:
chromium-reviews, darin-cc_chromium.org, jam, piman+watch_chromium.org
Target Ref:
refs/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add nullptr check for GpuProcessHost when allocating GpuMemoryBuffer This is appearing as a minor crasher. BUG=723698

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+7 lines, -1 line) Patch
M content/browser/gpu/browser_gpu_memory_buffer_manager.cc View 2 chunks +7 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 11 (5 generated)
ccameron
ptal -- small fix.
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 21:01:19 UTC) #3
Zhenyao Mo
lgtm
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 21:04:20 UTC) #4
commit-bot: I haz the power
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at: https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.org/2963433002/1
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 21:05:25 UTC) #6
reveman
Can you add a test for this? Or at least explain in the description of ...
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 22:12:19 UTC) #8
ccameron
On 2017/06/26 22:12:19, reveman wrote: > Can you add a test for this? Or at ...
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 22:42:06 UTC) #10
reveman
3 years, 5 months ago (2017-06-26 22:59:57 UTC) #11
On 2017/06/26 at 22:42:06, ccameron wrote:
> On 2017/06/26 22:12:19, reveman wrote:
> > Can you add a test for this? Or at least explain in the description of the
CL
> > when this can happen?
> 
> Every single other instance of GpuProcessHost::Get() has a null check, so this
is bringing this in line with all of the other instances, which presumably had a
motivation for their existence.

Ok, if you mention that in the description and point to another place where we
have a null check then this lgtm.

> 
> I took on this bug because it was mis-attributed to a change I made, and I
don't plan to spend any more time on it. If you'd like more research into this,
I can assign the bug to you.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698