On 10/14/2010 03:47 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 08:14 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:57 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>
>>> So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
>>> a name (with flink) we could endup with 2
On 10/14/2010 03:47 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 08:14 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:57 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 08:14 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:57 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
> > a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle pointing to the same
> > object (flink object and
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:57 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
> a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle pointing to the same
> object (flink object and open it from same file descriptor). Would it be ok
> if i change
So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle pointing to the same
object (flink object and open it from same file descriptor). Would it be ok
if i change gem open to first look if we already have an handle for the
So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle pointing to the same
object (flink object and open it from same file descriptor). Would it be ok
if i change gem open to first look if we already have an handle for the
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 08:14 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:57 -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
So we are facing a deadlock with the radeon cs ioctl. When a buffer is given
a name (with flink) we could endup with 2 handle pointing to the same
object (flink object and open it
