On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:35:12AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:47:10PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index a546a71..362da16 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -3777,6 +3777,29 @@ void i915_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object
> > *gem_obj)
> > }
> >
> > int
> > +i915_gem_get_cache_type_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > + struct drm_file *file_priv)
> > +{
> > +
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_get_cache_type *args = data;
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + obj = to_intel_bo(drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file_priv, args->handle));
> > + if (&obj->base == NULL) {
> > + ret = -ENOENT;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + args->cache_level = obj->cache_level;
>
> Grab struct_mutex around this, obj->cache_level might change over the
> lifetime of the bo. Yeah, our locking is a mess, I know ;-)
I don't see how a lock by itself helps. The cache_level could change as soon as
you release the lock which results in the same problem.
Ben
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
