<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Concurrent call to glClientWaitSync results in segfault in one of the waiters."
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c31">Comment # 31</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Concurrent call to glClientWaitSync results in segfault in one of the waiters."
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98172">bug 98172</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:shinji.suzuki@gmail.com" title="Suzuki, Shinji <shinji.suzuki@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Suzuki, Shinji</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Michel Dänzer from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c30">comment #30</a>)
<span class="quote">> (In reply to Suzuki, Shinji from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c29">comment #29</a>)
> Yes, that'll be patch 2, à la
> <a href="https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/115220/">https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/115220/</a> . :)</span >
Why is this patch rejected?
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);
?
Concurrent calls to screen->fence_reference(screen, &so->fence, NULL) must be
arbitrated as they race on dereference/resetting of the lhs value. But I
believe, though not too confident, that reference counting itself is
implemented in thread-safe manner therefore no arbitration on
screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, so->fence); is needed.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>