If kref_put_mutex returns true then the caller or the put function is responsible for unlocking the mutex.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com --- diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem.h b/include/drm/drm_gem.h index 1e6ae1458f7a..7a592d7e398b 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_gem.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem.h @@ -149,14 +149,16 @@ drm_gem_object_unreference(struct drm_gem_object *obj) static inline void drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) { - if (obj && !atomic_add_unless(&obj->refcount.refcount, -1, 1)) { - struct drm_device *dev = obj->dev; + struct drm_device *dev; + + if (!obj) + return;
- mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); - if (likely(atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcount.refcount))) - drm_gem_object_free(&obj->refcount); + dev = obj->dev; + if (kref_put_mutex(&obj->refcount, drm_gem_object_free, &dev->struct_mutex)) mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); - } + else + might_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); }
int drm_gem_handle_create(struct drm_file *file_priv,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:56:07PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
If kref_put_mutex returns true then the caller or the put function is responsible for unlocking the mutex.
This patch introduces the kref_put_mutex() usage, so this commit message is rather confusing.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem.h b/include/drm/drm_gem.h index 1e6ae1458f7a..7a592d7e398b 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_gem.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem.h @@ -149,14 +149,16 @@ drm_gem_object_unreference(struct drm_gem_object *obj) static inline void drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) {
- if (obj && !atomic_add_unless(&obj->refcount.refcount, -1, 1)) {
struct drm_device *dev = obj->dev;
- struct drm_device *dev;
- if (!obj)
return;
mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);if (likely(atomic_dec_and_test(&obj->refcount.refcount)))drm_gem_object_free(&obj->refcount);
- dev = obj->dev;
- if (kref_put_mutex(&obj->refcount, drm_gem_object_free, &dev->struct_mutex)) mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
- }
- else
might_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);}
int drm_gem_handle_create(struct drm_file *file_priv,
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Hey,
Op 07-04-15 om 16:19 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:56:07PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
If kref_put_mutex returns true then the caller or the put function is responsible for unlocking the mutex.
This patch introduces the kref_put_mutex() usage, so this commit message is rather confusing.
This was because of the confusion that happened when doing the same in i915_gem_request_unreference__unlocked, so I thought I would mention it explicitly in the commit message. :-)
~Maarten
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:23:55PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 07-04-15 om 16:19 schreef Ville Syrjälä:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 03:56:07PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
If kref_put_mutex returns true then the caller or the put function is responsible for unlocking the mutex.
This patch introduces the kref_put_mutex() usage, so this commit message is rather confusing.
This was because of the confusion that happened when doing the same in i915_gem_request_unreference__unlocked, so I thought I would mention it explicitly in the commit message. :-)
I've added a bit more text to make it clearer and applied the patch to topic/drm-misc. -Daniel
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
Maarten Lankhorst -
Ville Syrjälä