<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#c40">Comment # 40</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>Sorry I misunderstood your question and thought that you are asking if my
modification works or not. Your patch should work if mine works because yours
has tighter serialization. (My modification does not acquire mutex while
duplicating so->fence)
Yours is;
+ mtx_lock(&ctx->Shared->Mutex);
+ screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, so->fence);
+ mtx_unlock(&ctx->Shared->Mutex);
Mine is;
+ screen->fence_reference(screen, &fence, so->fence);
(In reply to Michel Dänzer from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c37">comment #37</a>)
<span class="quote">> Created <span class=""><a href="attachment.cgi?id=127413" name="attach_127413" title="Only protect concurrent access to so->fence">attachment 127413</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=127413&action=edit" title="Only protect concurrent access to so->fence">[details]</a></span> <a href='page.cgi?id=splinter.html&bug=98172&attachment=127413'>[review]</a> [review]
> Only protect concurrent access to so->fence
>
> Based on the discussion so far, this patch only protects concurrent acccess
> to so->fence. Shinji-san, does this work reliably for your test case?</span ></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>