From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maarten Lankhorst Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gem: add mutex lock when using drm_gem_mmap_obj Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 06:53:40 +0200 Message-ID: <51CBC554.1030702@canonical.com> References: <51CA9448.5040907@canonical.com> <1372289998-27798-1-git-send-email-sw0312.kim@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F14E621F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:53:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1372289998-27798-1-git-send-email-sw0312.kim@samsung.com> 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: Seung-Woo Kim Cc: laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, yj44.cho@samsung.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Op 27-06-13 01:39, Seung-Woo Kim schreef: > From: YoungJun Cho > > The drm_gem_mmap_obj() has to be protected with dev->struct_mutex, > but some caller functions do not. So it adds mutex lock to missing > callers and adds assertion to check whether drm_gem_mmap_obj() is > called with mutex lock or not. > > Signed-off-by: YoungJun Cho > Signed-off-by: Seung-Woo Kim > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park > CC: Laurent Pinchart > CC: Rob Clark > --- > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst