<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <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#c35">Comment # 35</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 <a class="email" href="mailto:maraeo@gmail.com" title="Marek Olšák <maraeo@gmail.com>"> Marek Olšák</a> <pre>(In reply to Michel Dänzer from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c34">comment #34</a>) > (In reply to Suzuki, Shinji from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c31">comment #31</a>) > > Why is this patch rejected? > > Because it'll have to be rebased on top of the updated patch 1. > > > > 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); > > ? > > I'm not sure r600_fence_reference() is thread safe. OK, again: fence_reference is thread-safe with regard to the reference counter and fence destruction. It doesn't, however, protect the "dst" pointer itself. Therefore: Not thread safe (race condition on so->fence): screen->fence_reference(screen, &so->fence, NULL); Always thread safe (if fence is a local variable): screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, NULL);</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>