Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL context | From | Maarten Lankhorst <> | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:42:26 +0100 |
| |
Op 28-11-16 om 13:20 schreef Nicolai Hähnle: > From: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@mblankhorst.nl> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@amd.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_fence.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_fence.c > index 488909a..e1d516f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_fence.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vgem/vgem_fence.c > @@ -191,12 +191,12 @@ int vgem_fence_attach_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > > /* Expose the fence via the dma-buf */ > ret = 0; > - mutex_lock(&resv->lock.base); > + ww_mutex_lock(&resv->lock.base, NULL); Yuck, can we rename base to __NEVER_TOUCH_DIRECTLY_OUTSIDE_LOCKING_CORE? It's harder to get them confused like that, even with a null context it's illegal to call mutex_lock/unlock directly.
~Maarten
| |