On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:47:45 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:54:37 +0100 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > @@ -258,8 +357,102 @@ static void intel_fbdev_destroy(struct drm_device *dev, > >> > > >> > drm_fb_helper_fini(&ifbdev->helper); > >> > > >> > - drm_framebuffer_unregister_private(&ifbdev->ifb.base); > >> > - intel_framebuffer_fini(&ifbdev->ifb); > >> > + drm_framebuffer_unregister_private(&ifbdev->fb->base); > >> > + intel_framebuffer_fini(ifbdev->fb); > >> > + kfree(ifbdev->fb); > >> > >> No need to go the private fb route here anymore since now the fb is > >> free-standing. Normal refcounting should work. But a separate prep/cleanup > >> patch (prep since switching ifbdev->fb from struct to point would look > >> neat as a separate patch). > > > > Oh and can you explain this? I wouldn't be surprised if I got the > > refcounting wrong, but given how tricky it can be, can you explain > > where we'll take the ref here, and show that the right thing will > > happen if/when we mode set away from this buffer? > > > > I haven't actually seen a bug here with or without this patch (no > > crashes or warns), but I thought I needed this to make sure the obj > > didn't get a negative count after a mode set... > > There's no bug here, and if you underrun the the refcount the current > logic here won't help. It's just that the explicit call to _fini was > an artifact of the old logic with embedding the framebuffer into the > fbdev structure. But now that the fbdev framebuffer is freestanding > there's no need for that - you exactly duplicate > intel_user_framebuffer_destroy now. > > So a simple drm_framebuffer_unreference will do the trick and makes it > clearer that this is now just another fb object with normal lifetime > rules. > > I guess I score points for unclear review here ;-) Oh! I had this mixed up with the refs I take in the init_bios code... I thought you were saying those weren't necessary and I was getting really confused. This is just fixing up existing code to use the new field name, so no functional change. I see what you mean about splitting out the field change, but now that would be a pain :/ Do you want the above removed as a separate patch regardless of where the rest of the patches go? Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
