Hi, 2012/10/19 ykzhao <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 22:07 -0600, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote: >> >> 2012/10/19 ykzhao <[email protected]>: >> > On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 07:19 -0600, Zhao, Yakui wrote: >> >> From: Zhao Yakui <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> It uses the variable of locked_image_id to check whether one surface is >> >> locked >> >> or not. But as the locked_image_id is not assigned correctly, it causes >> >> that >> >> it can't lock one surface next time although it calls the >> >> vaUnlockSurfaces. >> > >> > Any comment about this patch? >> >> I think you should move the assignment down after the "error:" clause >> and s/error/end/ because otherwise, you wouldn't be able to lock a >> surface again if an error occurred. Then, it should be fine. > > thanks for your review. > OK. I will update it.
Probably something like that? Not even tested for compile. The alternative is also to move it up just after "locked_img = IMAGE(obj_surface->locked_image_id);" and before the "if" since only locked_img would be used thereafter. That'd be a shorter patch.
fix_unlock_surface.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Libva mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
