https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172
--- Comment #35 from Marek Olšák <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Michel Dänzer from comment #34)
> (In reply to Suzuki, Shinji from comment #31)
> > Why is this patch rejected?
>
> Because it'll have to be rebased on top of the updated patch 1.
>
>
> > Now I'm revisiting your patch. Do we need to have mutual exclusion on
> > screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, so->fence);
> > and
> > screen->fence_reference(screen, &so->fence, NULL);
> > ?
>
> I'm not sure r600_fence_reference() is thread safe.
OK, again:
fence_reference is thread-safe with regard to the reference counter and fence
destruction. It doesn't, however, protect the "dst" pointer itself. Therefore:
Not thread safe (race condition on so->fence):
screen->fence_reference(screen, &so->fence, NULL);
Always thread safe (if fence is a local variable):
screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, NULL);
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
