On 8/10/22 21:25, Christian König wrote: > Am 10.08.22 um 19:49 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko: >> On 8/10/22 14:30, Christian König wrote: >>> Am 25.07.22 um 17:18 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko: >>>> This patch moves the non-dynamic dma-buf users over to the dynamic >>>> locking specification. The strict locking convention prevents deadlock >>>> situation for dma-buf importers and exporters. >>>> >>>> Previously the "unlocked" versions of the dma-buf API functions weren't >>>> taking the reservation lock and this patch makes them to take the lock. >>>> >>>> Intel and AMD GPU drivers already were mapping imported dma-bufs under >>>> the held lock, hence the "locked" variant of the functions are added >>>> for them and the drivers are updated to use the "locked" versions. >>> In general "Yes, please", but that won't be that easy. >>> >>> You not only need to change amdgpu and i915, but all drivers >>> implementing the map_dma_buf(), unmap_dma_buf() callbacks. >>> >>> Auditing all that code is a huge bunch of work. >> Hm, neither of drivers take the resv lock in map_dma_buf/unmap_dma_buf. >> It's easy to audit them all and I did it. So either I'm missing >> something or it doesn't take much time to check them all. Am I really >> missing something? > > Ok, so this is only changing map/unmap now? It also vmap/vunmap and attach/detach: In the previous patch I added the _unlocked postfix to the func names and in this patch I made them all to actually take the lock. > In this case please separate this from the documentation change. I'll factor out the doc in the v3. > I would also drop the _locked postfix from the function name, just > having _unlocked on all functions which are supposed to be called with > the lock held should be sufficient. Noted for the v3. > Thanks for looking into this, > Christian. Thank you for the review. -- Best regards, Dmitry
