The only things this protects is reading ->flags and ->size, both of
which are invariant over the lifetime of an exynos gem bo. So no
locking needed at all (besides that, nothing protects the writers
anyway).
Aside: exynos_gem_obj->size is redundant with
exynos_gem_obj->base.size and probably should be removed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gem.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gem.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gem.c
index a3286a1ec2b1..dfb3bfee1b63 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gem.c
@@ -352,12 +352,9 @@ int exynos_drm_gem_get_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void
*data,
struct drm_exynos_gem_info *args = data;
struct drm_gem_object *obj;
- mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
-
obj = drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file_priv, args->handle);
if (!obj) {
DRM_ERROR("failed to lookup gem object.\n");
- mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -367,7 +364,6 @@ int exynos_drm_gem_get_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void
*data,
args->size = exynos_gem->size;
drm_gem_object_unreference(obj);
- mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
return 0;
}
--
2.5.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
