On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 11:10:53AM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> obj->framebuffer_references isn't an atomic_t so the decrement needs to
> be protected by some lock. struct_mutex seems like the appropriate lock
> here, and we may already take it for the obj unref anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index b5cbb28..5762726 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -11504,11 +11504,14 @@ static void intel_setup_outputs(struct drm_device *dev)
>
> static void intel_user_framebuffer_destroy(struct drm_framebuffer *fb)
> {
> + struct drm_device *dev = fb->dev;
> struct intel_framebuffer *intel_fb = to_intel_framebuffer(fb);
>
> drm_framebuffer_cleanup(fb);
> + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> WARN_ON(!intel_fb->obj->framebuffer_references--);
> - drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(&intel_fb->obj->base);
> + drm_gem_object_unreference(&intel_fb->obj->base);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> kfree(intel_fb);
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.5.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
