On Apr 12, 2016 3:41 PM, "Matt Turner" <<a href="mailto:mattst88@gmail.com">mattst88@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Mark Janes <<a href="mailto:mark.a.janes@intel.com">mark.a.janes@intel.com</a>> wrote: > > Fixes intermittent Vulkan CTS failures within the test groups: > > dEQP-VK.api.object_management.multithreaded_per_thread_device > > dEQP-VK.api.object_management.multithreaded_per_thread_resources > > dEQP-VK.api.object_management.multithreaded_shared_resources > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Janes <<a href="mailto:mark.a.janes@intel.com">mark.a.janes@intel.com</a>> > > Bugzilla: <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94904">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94904</a> > > Have you seen <a href="https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gcrypt/Multi_002dThreading.html#Multi_002dThreading">https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gcrypt/Multi_002dThreading.html#Multi_002dThreading</a> > ? > > I feel pretty uncertain that the patch as it is would be sufficient in > general, but maybe it's okay since we're just using libgcrypt for > SHA1? Ugh... It should be *mostly* safe as mesa only uses gcrypt for it's sha1 implementation. However, if something uses GL and uses libgcrypt for something else, we may have a large, hard-to-debug problem. Not sure how dire we think it is. Would it be better to remove the gcrypt implementation in light of this?