From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: drm/i915: double unlock in intel_setup_overlay() Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:20:55 +0100 Message-ID: <013811$ive1b@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com> References: <20110623180616.GO14591@shale.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77074A0A82 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:20:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110623180616.GO14591@shale.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Dan Carpenter , hughd@google.com Cc: "open list:INTEL DRM DRIVERS..." List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:06:16 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Smatch complains about the recent locking changes in > intel_setup_overlay() that it unlocks twice on an error path. I was > also curious if we shouldn't call i915_gem_object_unpin() on that > error path. I don't know the drm code well enough to know about > unpinning so I'm sending this bug report instead of patching it > myself. :) Right, along the 945+ error path we need to unpin. Where did the locking fixes land, I don't see the updated intel_overlay.c to comment upon the double unlock? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre