On 4/9/25 07:48, Arunpravin Paneer Selvam wrote:
> Add lock before accessing dma_fence_is_signaled_locked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arunpravin Paneer Selvam <arunpravin.paneersel...@amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> index 24d19b920100..d5b35b5df527 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
> @@ -259,11 +259,13 @@ static int amdgpu_userq_fence_create(struct
> amdgpu_usermode_queue *userq,
>
> /* Check if hardware has already processed the job */
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fence_drv->fence_list_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_nested(fence->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
That is clear incorrect use of spin_lock_nested(). Why does a normal spinlock()
doesn't work?
Regards,
Christian.
> if (!dma_fence_is_signaled_locked(fence))
> list_add_tail(&userq_fence->link, &fence_drv->fences);
> else
> dma_fence_put(fence);
>
> + spin_unlock(fence->lock);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence_drv->fence_list_lock, flags);
>
> *f = fence;
