Am 21.12.18 um 19:35 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> On 21.12.2018 21:27, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 19.12.18 um 18:53 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> @@ -931,9 +718,6 @@ static signed long
>>>> drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs,
>>>> if (flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT) {
>>>> for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
>>>> - if (entries[i].fence)
>>>> - continue;
>>>> -
>>>> drm_syncobj_fence_get_or_add_callback(syncobjs[i],
>>>> &entries[i].fence,
>>>> &entries[i].syncobj_cb,
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The above three removed lines we added in commit 337fe9f5c1e7de
>>> ("drm/syncobj: Don't leak fences when WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT is set") that fixed a
>>> memleak. Removal of the lines returns the memleak because of disbalanced
>>> fence refcounting and it looks like they were removed unintentionally in
>>> this patch.
>> That was already fixed with 61a98b1b9a8c7 drm/syncobj: remove drm_syncobj_cb
>> and cleanup.
>>
>> This cleanup removed all the duplicate checking and is now adding the
>> callback only once.
> Okay, though that commit is not in linux-next. I assume it will show up
> eventually.
Need to double check, that could indeed be a problem.
Christian.
