Hi Jeffy,
Am 10.08.22 um 06:16 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 18:18, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
[SNIP]
Maybe cache the latest returned handle in the obj(after
drm_gem_prime_fd_to_handle), and clear it when that handle been
deleted in drm_gem_handle_delete()?
That won't
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 18:18, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 12:02 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 17:08, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 09:55 schrieb Christian König:
[SNIP]
So we are allowing GEM object to have multiple handles, and G
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 12:02 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 17:08, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 09:55 schrieb Christian König:
[SNIP]
So we are allowing GEM object to have multiple handles, and GEM
object could have at most one dma-buf, doesn't that m
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 17:08, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 09:55 schrieb Christian König:
[SNIP]
So we are allowing GEM object to have multiple handles, and GEM
object could have at most one dma-buf, doesn't that means that
dma-buf could map to multiple handles?
N
Hi Jeffy,
Am 09.08.22 um 09:55 schrieb Christian König:
[SNIP]
So we are allowing GEM object to have multiple handles, and GEM
object could have at most one dma-buf, doesn't that means that
dma-buf could map to multiple handles?
No, at least not for the same GEM file private. That's the
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 15:55, Christian König wrote:
Am 09.08.22 um 03:28 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 2:03, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 08.08.22 um 05:51 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry i didn't make it clear.
On 8/8 星期一 0:52,
Am 09.08.22 um 03:28 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 2:03, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 08.08.22 um 05:51 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry i didn't make it clear.
On 8/8 星期一 0:52, Christian König wrote:
Am 03.08.22 um 10:32 schrieb Jeff
Hi Christian,
On 8/9 星期二 2:03, Christian König wrote:
Hi Jeffy,
Am 08.08.22 um 05:51 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry i didn't make it clear.
On 8/8 星期一 0:52, Christian König wrote:
Am 03.08.22 um 10:32 schrieb Jeffy Chen:
Currently we are assuming a one to
Hi Jeffy,
Am 08.08.22 um 05:51 schrieb Chen Jeffy:
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry i didn't make it clear.
On 8/8 星期一 0:52, Christian König wrote:
Am 03.08.22 um 10:32 schrieb Jeffy Chen:
Currently we are assuming a one to one mapping between dmabuf and
handle
when releasing
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your reply, and sorry i didn't make it clear.
On 8/8 星期一 0:52, Christian König wrote:
Am 03.08.22 um 10:32 schrieb Jeffy Chen:
Currently we are assuming a one to one mapping between dmabuf and handle
when releasing GEM handles.
But that is not always true, since we wo
Am 03.08.22 um 10:32 schrieb Jeffy Chen:
Currently we are assuming a one to one mapping between dmabuf and handle
when releasing GEM handles.
But that is not always true, since we would create extra handles for the
GEM obj in cases like gem_open() and getfb{,2}().
A similar issue was reported a
Currently we are assuming a one to one mapping between dmabuf and handle
when releasing GEM handles.
But that is not always true, since we would create extra handles for the
GEM obj in cases like gem_open() and getfb{,2}().
A similar issue was reported at:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202111050833
12 matches
Mail list logo
