Quoting Emil Velikov (2020-05-20 15:25:05)
> Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov
>
> I'm half way through checking the callers and I've noticed a handful of bugs.
> Will send the series in due time, although your patch is a perfect
> intermediate solution.
Pushed the compromise patch. That should keep us
On Wed, 20 May 2020 at 15:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Some users want to pass NULL to drm_gem_object_put(), but those using
> __drm_gem_object_put() did not. Compromise, have both and let the
> compiler sort it out.
>
> drm_gem_fb_destroy() calls drm_gem_object_put() with NULL obj causing:
> [ 1
Some users want to pass NULL to drm_gem_object_put(), but those using
__drm_gem_object_put() did not. Compromise, have both and let the
compiler sort it out.
drm_gem_fb_destroy() calls drm_gem_object_put() with NULL obj causing:
[ 11.584209] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 000
