On 30/6/21 4:02 pm, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:18 AM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
wrote:
On 30/6/21 12:07 am, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:37:06AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
Currently, direct copies of drm_file->master pointers should be
protected by
On 30/6/21 12:07 am, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:37:06AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
Currently, direct copies of drm_file->master pointers should be
protected by drm_device.master_mutex when being dereferenced. This is
because drm_file->master is not invariant for the
On 30/6/21 8:16 am, Emil Velikov wrote:
Hi Desmond,
Couple of small suggestions, with those the series is:
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 04:38, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
wrote:
@@ -128,13 +137,20 @@ bool drm_lease_held(struct drm_file *file_priv, int id)
struct drm_m
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:18 AM Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
wrote:
>
> On 30/6/21 12:07 am, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:37:06AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> >> Currently, direct copies of drm_file->master pointers should be
> >> protected by drm_device.master_mutex when
Hi Desmond,
Couple of small suggestions, with those the series is:
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 at 04:38, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
wrote:
> @@ -128,13 +137,20 @@ bool drm_lease_held(struct drm_file *file_priv, int id)
> struct drm_master *master;
> bool ret;
>
> -
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:37:06AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> Currently, direct copies of drm_file->master pointers should be
> protected by drm_device.master_mutex when being dereferenced. This is
> because drm_file->master is not invariant for the lifetime of
> drm_file. If drm_file is
Currently, direct copies of drm_file->master pointers should be
protected by drm_device.master_mutex when being dereferenced. This is
because drm_file->master is not invariant for the lifetime of
drm_file. If drm_file is not the creator of master, then
drm_file->is_master is false, and a call to dr