On 22/01/18 01:42 AM, Chunming Zhou wrote: > > > 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 Hi David, Ok I'll see if I can sort this out. Cheers, Tom > > 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 >
