On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Rodrigo Vivi (2017-08-10 15:50:43) >> I'm not sure if this is really the case and I don't believe >> this is the real fix for the bug mentioned here, but since >> I don't see a reliable path when mst_port is set and when >> mode_valid is requested I believe it is worth to have this >> protection here. > > The guard looks correct. We defend ourselves against the async > disconnect elsewhere through the post-detect callbacks, i.e. we cannot > rely on intel_connector->mst_port remaining valid for a whole detect() > cycle. > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> thanks, merged to dinq. the discussion around the actual bug should move back to 102022 > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
