On 07/05/2013 10:03 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Joonyoung,
>
> On Friday 05 July 2013 15:30:25 Joonyoung Shim wrote:
>> On 07/05/2013 02:38 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Joonyoung Shim wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2013 07:11 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> Thank you.
>
> We need to fix the problem for v3.11 as well, by applying either this set or
> the fix you have just sent. I have no strong preference regarding which
> patches to pick.
>I also don't care, but i can report v3 patchset based on a patch for a special fix for commit consistency.
