On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:32:02AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index b13c5526a73b..7aaf8eddf19c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -2146,14 +2146,14 @@ i915_gem_request_unreference(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> static inline void
> i915_gem_request_unreference__unlocked(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> {
> - if (req && !atomic_add_unless(&req->ref.refcount, -1, 1)) {
> - struct drm_device *dev = req->ring->dev;
> + struct drm_device *dev;
> +
> + if (!req)
> + return;
>
> - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> - if (likely(atomic_dec_and_test(&req->ref.refcount)))
> - i915_gem_request_free(&req->ref);
> + dev = req->ring->dev;
> + if (kref_put_mutex(&req->ref, i915_gem_request_free, &dev->struct_mutex))
> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
We don't need this conditional unlock here since that's only possible if
you have a weak reference somewhere (i.e. using kref_get_unless_zero). If
the object only has strong references and you're dropping the last one it
can't magically get resurrected somehow.
And drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked wants the same patch I think.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
