On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:13:43PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 02/02/16 13:16, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:06:26AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>@@ -5244,8 +5243,10 @@ static void valleyview_cleanup_pctx(struct drm_device *dev) > >> if (WARN_ON(!dev_priv->vlv_pctx)) > >> return; > >> > >>+ mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > >> drm_gem_object_unreference(&dev_priv->vlv_pctx->base); > >> dev_priv->vlv_pctx = NULL; > >>+ mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > > >This made me smile. > > Yeah mechanical- want unreference_unlocked instead? _unlocked() has the advantage of not suggesting that dev_priv->vlv_pctx needs to be part of the locked transaction (that's the bit that caused a double take). But it really doesn't matter. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
