On 22/01/18 01:42 AM, Chunming Zhou wrote:
On 2018年01月20日 02:23, Tom St Denis wrote:
On 19/01/18 01:14 PM, Tom St Denis wrote:
Hi all,
In the function ttm_bo_cleanup_refs() it seems possible to get to
line 551 without entering the block on 516 which means you'll be
unlocking a mutex that wasn't locked.
Now it might be that in the course of the API this pattern cannot be
expressed but it's not clear from the function alone that that is the
case.
Looking further it seems the behaviour depends on locking in parent
callers. That's kinda a no-no right? Shouldn't the lock be
taken/released in the same function ideally?
Same feelings
Hi David,
Ok I'll see if I can sort this out.
Cheers,
Tom
Regards,
David Zhou
(also there are a handful of style issues I'll write up some patches
for on Monday :-)).
Cheers,
Tom
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
