On 21.12.2018 21:45, Koenig, Christian wrote: > Am 21.12.18 um 19:35 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko: >> On 21.12.2018 21:27, Christian König wrote: >>> Am 19.12.18 um 18:53 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko: >>>> [SNIP] >>>>> @@ -931,9 +718,6 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs, >>>>> if (flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT) { >>>>> for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) { >>>>> - if (entries[i].fence) >>>>> - continue; >>>>> - >>>>> drm_syncobj_fence_get_or_add_callback(syncobjs[i], >>>>> &entries[i].fence, >>>>> &entries[i].syncobj_cb, >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> The above three removed lines we added in commit 337fe9f5c1e7de ("drm/syncobj: Don't leak fences when WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT is set") that fixed a memleak. Removal of the lines returns the memleak because of disbalanced fence refcounting and it looks like they were removed unintentionally in this patch. >>> That was already fixed with 61a98b1b9a8c7 drm/syncobj: remove drm_syncobj_cb and cleanup. >>> >>> This cleanup removed all the duplicate checking and is now adding the callback only once. >> Okay, though that commit is not in linux-next. I assume it will show up eventually. > > Need to double check, that could indeed be a problem. Thanks for taking care! _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel