Hi, On 02/16/2015 02:31 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
intel_user_framebuffer_destroy() requires the struct_mutex for its object bookkeeping, so this means that all calls to drm_framebuffer_reference must be held without that lock.
Same comment on the commit message as 1/2.
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89166 Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c index 6e1da7da5cca..aba36662d511 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c @@ -13672,6 +13672,8 @@ void intel_modeset_gem_init(struct drm_device *dev) struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; struct drm_crtc *c; struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; + struct drm_plane *unused[I915_MAX_PIPES]; + int n_unused = 0; mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); intel_init_gt_powersave(dev); @@ -13707,13 +13709,18 @@ void intel_modeset_gem_init(struct drm_device *dev) NULL)) { DRM_ERROR("failed to pin boot fb on pipe %d\n", to_intel_crtc(c)->pipe); - drm_framebuffer_unreference(c->primary->fb); - c->primary->fb = NULL; - update_state_fb(c->primary); + unused[n_unused++] = c->primary; } } mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); + while (n_unused--) { + struct drm_plane *p = unused[n_unused]; + drm_framebuffer_unreference(p->fb); + p->fb = NULL; + update_state_fb(p); + } +
For this one I am not sure. Should c->primary->fb = NULL remain under the locked loop? If not what is the the mutex protecting then?
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
