<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#c36">Comment # 36</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>Michel-san, thank you for elaboration. Maybe this discussion continues because
I have failed to express my question clearly. What I'm wondering is that if the
following section needs to be protected by ctx->Shared->Mutex or not.
screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, so->fence);
if(!fence) {
/* If the so->fence has been reset to NULL, the fence have been reached
but so->b.StatusFlag may not be set to GL_TRUE yet. Since the caller
may check on the value of the flag as soon as the control returns,
do the same too although redundant.
*/
so->b.StatusFlag = GL_TRUE;
goto quit;
}
I completely agree that locking is needed in the following section marked with
!.
(so->b.StatusFlag = GL_TRUE can be moved out of the block though.)
if (screen->fence_finish(screen, fence, 0)) {
! mtx_lock(&ctx->Shared->Mutex);
! screen->fence_reference(screen, &so->fence, NULL);
! so->b.StatusFlag = GL_TRUE;
! mtx_unlock(&ctx->Shared->Mutex);
}</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>