On 7 October 2016 at 19:23, Chad Versace <c...@kiwitree.net> wrote:
> On Thu 06 Oct 2016, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Chad,
>>
>> On 4 October 2016 at 23:37, Chad Versace <chadvers...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > We locked an unitialized mutex in the callstack
>> > glClientWaitSync
>> > intel_gl_client_wait_sync
>> > brw_fence_client_wait_sync
>> > because we forgot to initialize it in intel_gl_fence_sync.
>> > (The EGLSync codepath didn't have this bug. It initialized the mutex in
>> > intel_dri_create_sync).
>> >
>> > We also forgot to tear down (mtx_destroy) the mutex when destroying
>> > the sync object.
>> >
>> > Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org
>
>> Do you have a few minutes to roll an similar fix for i915 ? It should
>> be identical (barring naming fixes) to this.
>
> I would do it if i915's sync object already included a mutex. But it
> doesn't.
>
> struct intel_sync_object {
> struct gl_sync_object Base;
>
> /** Batch associated with this sync object */
> drm_intel_bo *bo;
> };
>
> I hesitate to make non-obvious changes (like adding a mutex) to a driver
> that I'm unable to test.
Hmm yes. Seems like Mauro's i915 port of
4f48674d51f03d8c954a89dfc49539a1dc750c4d never made it.
Mauro I believe the i915 was already tested on your end ? If so please
send it over alongside any other outstanding patches that you have
around.
You might want to port/test the above patch for i915, as well :-)
Thanks
Emil
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
