On 11/20/23 14:19, Boris Brezillon wrote:
...
>>>> - dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
>>>> -
>>>> drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, refcount_read(&shmem->vmap_use_count));
>>>>
>>>> if (shmem->sgt) {
>>>> @@ -157,8 +171,6 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>>>>
>>> If you drop the dma_resv_lock/unlock(), you should also replace the
>>> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() by a drm_gem_shmem_free_pages() in this
>>> commit.
>>
>> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() is exported by a later patch of this
>> series, it's not worthwhile to remove this function
>
> I'm not talking about removing drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(), but
> replacing the drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() call you have in
> drm_gem_shmem_free() by a drm_gem_shmem_free_pages(), so you don't end
> up with a lockdep warning when you stop exactly here in the patch
> series, which is important if we want to keep things bisectable.
Indeed, there is assert_locked() there. Thanks for the clarification :)
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
