On 07/05/2013 02:38 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim at samsung.com>
> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2013 07:11 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hi Joonyoung,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the patches.
>>>
>>> On Friday 28 June 2013 14:24:43 Joonyoung Shim wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> This is the second version patchset.
>>>>
>>>> GEM CMA supports dma_buf but it needs GEM CMA specific functionality for
>>>> dma_buf. We can use prime helpers for dma_buf by commit
>>>> 89177644a7b6306e6084a89eab7e290f4bfef397 "drm: add prime helpers", so
>>>> this patchset is to replace from using GEM CMA specific functions to
>>>> using prime helpers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To Laurent,
>>>>
>>>> It is merged a patch to cache mapping from DRM Prime, can this patchset
>>>> get your ack?
>>> There you go (and sorry for the late reply)
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>
>>>
>>> By the way, between the initial version of the GEM CMA PRIME patch and the
>>> version that got merged in v3.10, commit
>>> 011c2282c74db120f01a8414edc66c3f217f5511 ("drm: prime: fix refcounting on
>>> the
>>> dmabuf import error path") was introduced. The GEM CMA PRIME code in v3.10
>>> thus has a refcounting bug :-(
>>>
>>> Should this patch set go to -stable, or should we cook up a special fix ?
>>
>> I'm not sure it's better to choose which way.
>>
>> Dave, how we should do about that problem?
> I think a special fix for stable once we get these merged to Linus.
>
OK, i will post a patch for a special fix.
Thanks.
