On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:32:46AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c >> index e3a86b96af2a..a43690ab18b9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/armada/armada_gem.c >> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static size_t roundup_gem_size(size_t size) >> return roundup(size, PAGE_SIZE); >> } >> >> -/* dev->struct_mutex is held here */ >> +/* dev_priv->linear_lock is held here */ >> void armada_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > This is wrong (unless there's changes which I'm not aware of.) > > This function is called from drm_gem_object_free(), which is called from > drm_gem_object_unreference(), both of which contain: > > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev->struct_mutex)); > > Now, unless you're changing the conditions on which > drm_gem_object_unreference() to be under dev_priv->linear_lock, the > above comment becomes misleading. > > It'd also need drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked() to become per- > driver, so it can take dev_priv->linear_lock, and I don't see anything > in the patches which I've received which does that. > > So, I suspect the new comment is basically false. Well the patch is false. I should have grabbed the new dev_priv->linear_lock around the cleanup functions in armada_gem_free_object. Which is possible since armada never calls an gem unref function while holding the new lock. Sorry for not double-checking what I've done, I'll revise. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
