| Message ID | 1391101118-29633-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit b3f2333de8e81b089262b26d52272911523e605f > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed Dec 11 11:34:31 2013 +0100 > > drm: restrict the device list for shadow attached drivers > > Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> > Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> > Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > index 5736aaa7e86c..f7af69bcf3f4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c > @@ -468,8 +468,8 @@ void drm_pci_exit(struct drm_driver *driver, struct pci_driver *pdriver) > } else { > list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &driver->legacy_dev_list, > legacy_dev_list) { > - drm_put_dev(dev); > list_del(&dev->legacy_dev_list); > + drm_put_dev(dev); This code-path is the only user of legacy_dev_list (besides ->probe) and both are locked against each other. So removing the device before destroying it is fine. So no objections from me: Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Thanks David > } > } > DRM_INFO("Module unloaded\n"); > -- > 1.8.5.2 >
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:58:38PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > This regression has been introduced in > > commit b3f2333de8e81b089262b26d52272911523e605f > Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> > Date: Wed Dec 11 11:34:31 2013 +0100 > > drm: restrict the device list for shadow attached drivers > btw, I noticed this because it got flagged in the nightly coverity runs. Of the 18 new issues added yesterday 14 were from drivers/gpu/ If drm developers want to sign up at http://scan.coverity.com to help out looking over those (and the backlog: stats below) I can get those accounts approved quickly. I've been going through trying to clear out as much of the 'noise' as possible, but it's a huge job. There's a bunch of cases where the checker can't figure out if it's a real bug or not because it doesn't know things like "the hardware will only ever return these values", but the majority look like actual coding flaws. Dave Currently outstanding issues: Radeon: 64 Nouveau: 36 i915: 32 misc drm: 24 gma500: 11 qxl: 7
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c index 5736aaa7e86c..f7af69bcf3f4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c @@ -468,8 +468,8 @@ void drm_pci_exit(struct drm_driver *driver, struct pci_driver *pdriver) } else { list_for_each_entry_safe(dev, tmp, &driver->legacy_dev_list, legacy_dev_list) { - drm_put_dev(dev); list_del(&dev->legacy_dev_list); + drm_put_dev(dev); } } DRM_INFO("Module unloaded\n");
This regression has been introduced in commit b3f2333de8e81b089262b26d52272911523e605f Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Date: Wed Dec 11 11:34:31 2013 +0100 drm: restrict the device list for shadow attached drivers Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Cc: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_pci.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)