On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:20:35PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sudip Mukherjee >> <sudipm.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:20:40PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> >> If backing->stolen is true then we were freeing backing by calling >> >> psb_gtt_free_range() but we called it again after unlocking the mutex. >> >> Lets make it NULL after freeing in psb_gtt_free_range() and check for >> >> NULL before calling the function for the second time. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> > Hi Patrik, >> > A gentle ping. >> > >> > regards >> > sudip >> >> Hi, sorry for the late reply. >> >> Why are we freeing the range twice in the first case? > I think, > if backing->stolen is true then backing is released using > psb_gtt_free_range() but if backing->stolen is false then the gem object > is freed but the backing is not yet freed. To free that backing > psb_gtt_free_range() has been called second time. My patch tried to fix > the possibility of backing->stolen being true and backing being freed 2 > times. > > regards > sudip There are some special handling of the stolen framebuffer that I don't remember entirely but the basic concept is that we free the backing when we drop the last reference on a gem object. That will trigger a psb_gtt_free_range(). So in this case it looks to me that the extra free is not needed at all. That's my quick reasoning, feel free to prove me wrong :) Thanks Patrik _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
