Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> NAK,
>
> The mutex unlock is done in vmw_fifo_commit. The mutex is protecting the
> fifo memory against multiple simultaneous reservers.
>
Thanks for the answer :-). sorry for your time... i will definitely
try more reading and analyse the code and then send patch if it needs
really.
> /Thomas
>
>
>
>
> On 08/04/2012 07:33 AM, Devendra Naga wrote:
>>
>> we have done a proper mutex_unlock in the error cases of the
>> vmw_fifo_reserve, but
>> there are missing mutex unlocks where we return a valid pointer in
>> vmw_fifo_reserve.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Devendra Naga <develkernel412222@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fifo.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fifo.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fifo.c
>> index a0c2f12..e3abd7a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fifo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fifo.c
>> @@ -355,6 +355,7 @@ void *vmw_fifo_reserve(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
>> uint32_t bytes)
>> if (reserveable)
>> iowrite32(bytes, fifo_mem +
>> SVGA_FIFO_RESERVED);
>> + mutex_unlock(&fifo_state->fifo_mutex);
>> return fifo_mem + (next_cmd >> 2);
>> } else {
>> need_bounce = true;
>> @@ -363,10 +364,12 @@ void *vmw_fifo_reserve(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
>> uint32_t bytes)
>> if (need_bounce) {
>> fifo_state->using_bounce_buffer = true;
>> - if (bytes < fifo_state->static_buffer_size)
>> + if (bytes < fifo_state->static_buffer_size) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&fifo_state->fifo_mutex);
>> return fifo_state->static_buffer;
>> - else {
>> + } else {
>> fifo_state->dynamic_buffer =
>> vmalloc(bytes);
>> + mutex_unlock(&fifo_state->fifo_mutex);
>> return fifo_state->dynamic_buffer;
>> }
>> }
>
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
