On 2018å¹´01æ??20æ?¥ 02:23, Tom St Denis wrote: > On 19/01/18 01:14 PM, Tom St Denis wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In the function ttm_bo_cleanup_refs() it seems possible to get to >> line 551 without entering the block on 516 which means you'll be >> unlocking a mutex that wasn't locked. >> >> Now it might be that in the course of the API this pattern cannot be >> expressed but it's not clear from the function alone that that is the >> case. > > > Looking further it seems the behaviour depends on locking in parent > callers. That's kinda a no-no right? Shouldn't the lock be > taken/released in the same function ideally? Same feelings Regards, David Zhou > > (also there are a handful of style issues I'll write up some patches > for on Monday :-)). > > Cheers, > Tom > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
