Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-08 23:46:02) > The atomic exchange operation we were doing before in replace_fence was > sufficient for the case where it raced with itself. However, if you > have a race between a replace_fence and dma_fence_get(syncobj->fence), > you may end up with the entire replace_fence happening between the point > in time where the one thread gets the syncobj->fence pointer and when it > calls dma_fence_get() on it. If this happens, then the reference may be > dropped before we get a chance to get a new one. This doesn't require a spinlock, just dma_fence_get_rcu_safe(). The argument for keeping this patch lies in the merit of later patches.. -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
