Hi Daniel,
On Tuesday, 3 April 2018 12:07:31 EEST Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 06:05:22PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday, 29 March 2018 12:41:33 EEST Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 28/03/18 14:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> The only thing that omap_gem_free_object
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 06:05:22PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thursday, 29 March 2018 12:41:33 EEST Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 28/03/18 14:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > The only thing that omap_gem_free_object does that might need the
> > > magic protection of struct_mutex (
Hello,
On Thursday, 29 March 2018 12:41:33 EEST Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 28/03/18 14:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > The only thing that omap_gem_free_object does that might need the
> > magic protection of struct_mutex (of keeping all objects alive if that
> > lock is held, even if the last refere
On 28/03/18 14:41, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The only thing that omap_gem_free_object does that might need the
> magic protection of struct_mutex (of keeping all objects alive if that
> lock is held, even if the last reference is gone) is the mm_list
> manipulation.
>
> But that is already protected
The only thing that omap_gem_free_object does that might need the
magic protection of struct_mutex (of keeping all objects alive if that
lock is held, even if the last reference is gone) is the mm_list
manipulation.
But that is already protected by the separate omapdrm->list_lock,
which means stru
