Hello Thomas,
On 5/10/22 10:04, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 10.05.22 um 00:42 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
On 5/10/22 00:22, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
[snip]
static void drm_fbdev_fb_destroy(struct fb_info *info) {
if (info->cmap.len)fb_dealloc_cmap(&info->cmap);drm_fbdev_release(info->par);framebuffer_release(info);I would put drm_fbdev_release at the beginning - it cancels workers which could expect cmap to be still valid.
Indeed, you are correct again. [0] is the final version of the patch I've but don't have an i915 test machine to give it a try. I'll test tomorrow on my test systems to verify that it doesn't cause any regressions since with other DRM drivers.
You have to go through all DRM drivers that call drm_fb_helper_fini() and make sure that they free fb_info. For example armada appears to be leaking now. [1]
But shouldn't fb_info be freed when unregister_framebuffer() is called through drm_dev_unregister() ? AFAICT the call chain is the following:
drm_put_dev() drm_dev_unregister() drm_client_dev_unregister() drm_fbdev_client_unregister() drm_fb_helper_unregister_fbi() unregister_framebuffer() do_unregister_framebuffer() put_fb_info() drm_fbdev_fb_destroy() framebuffer_release()
which is the reason why I believe that drm_fb_helper_fini() should be an internal static function and only called from drm_fbdev_fb_destroy().
Drivers shouldn't really explicitly call this helper in my opinion.