On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, <j.glisse at gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse at redhat.com> >> >> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the >> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate >> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we >> enforce both of this constraint. >> >> v2: actually test build it >> >> Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296 >> >> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse at redhat.com> > > Isn't that just another iteration of > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1972071/ which somehow never > reached -fixes? > -Daniel
Yes but my version doesn't drop the lock before taking the ref, iirc there might be a race if droping the lock and then taking it again. Another process might race to unref the sync obj but i haven't tortured too much my brain on how likely if at all this is possible. Cheers, Jerome
