<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#c49">Comment # 49</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 Marek Olšák from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=98172#c47">comment #47</a>)
<span class="quote">> What was wrong with the initial mutex idea? I think the solution in comment
> 22 is sufficient to close this bug.</span >
I did not like added storage overhead of containing a mutex and CPU overhead of
initialization and destruction of the mutex even for single threaded execution.
Also I wonder if the lock needed to be held while so->fence is inspected &
duplicated. (Per sync-object mutex poses less contention than using
ctx->Shared.Mutex therefore this point is not worth bothering about.)
However I can't see anything wrong with the fix.</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>