On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:47:21AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 18 June 2016 at 00:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
>
> >> @@ -134,24 +152,21 @@ static int drm_new_set_master(struct drm_device
> >> *dev, struct drm_file *fpriv)
> >>
> >> /* take another reference for the copy in the local file
On 18 June 2016 at 00:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> @@ -134,24 +152,21 @@ static int drm_new_set_master(struct drm_device *dev,
>> struct drm_file *fpriv)
>>
>> /* take another reference for the copy in the local file priv */
>> old_master = fpriv->master;
>> - fpriv->master =
Hi Daniel,
It doesn't look quite right I'm afraid. This causes a leak plus
there's a small style issue. See below for details.
On 17 June 2016 at 08:33, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> @@ -134,24 +152,21 @@ static int drm_new_set_master(struct drm_device *dev,
> struct drm_file *fpriv)
>
> /*
File open/set_maseter ioctl and file close/drop_master ioctl share the
same master handling code. Extract it.
Note that vmwgfx's master_set callback needs to know whether the
master is a new one or has been used already, so thread this through.
On the close/drop side a similar parameter existed, b
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:33:31AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> File open/set_maseter ioctl and file close/drop_master ioctl share the
> same master handling code. Extract it.
>
> Note that vmwgfx's master_set callback needs to know whether the
> master is a new one or has been used already, so t
