<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import fd ownership is incorrect" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76188#c9">Comment # 9</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - EGL_EXT_image_dma_buf_import fd ownership is incorrect" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76188">bug 76188</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:ppaalanen@gmail.com" title="Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@gmail.com>"> Pekka Paalanen</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=76188#c7">comment #7</a>) > I do see risk in not cherry-picking the fix. If an app uses this extension > with unfixed Mesa 10.2, then that app will leak file descriptors. Hmm, isn't it the vice versa though? If an app is written to work on unfixed Mesa (the app is broken), it works on both unfixed and fixed Mesa, but leaks fds on fixed Mesa, because nothing will close the fds given to Mesa. If an app is written to work on fixed Mesa (the app is correct), it will not work on unfixed Mesa, because unfixed Mesa will close the fds behind the app's back. (Assuming the app actually needs to store and use the fds again.) So, concretely, do I have to send a copy of the patch to mesa-stable@ or something, or is it already taken care of? Any tag lines to add to the patch?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>