Am 01.05.2017 um 02:13 schrieb Xie, AlexBin: > > On 28/04/17 11:12 PM, Xie, AlexBin wrote: > > >> Am 28.04.2017 um 10:47 schrieb Michel Dänzer: > >>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> > >>> > >>> Some of these paths probably cannot be interrupted by a signal anyway. > >>> Those that can would fail to clean up things if they actually got > >>> interrupted. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com> > > > > Alex X: Just a reminder: amdgpu_unpin_work_func is called by work queue. > > Signal is blocked already. un-interruptible waiting might slow thing > > down very slightly. > > How so? > > Alex X: I said "might". If you think it is not slower, it is fine for me. > My real concern is that the signals are blocked for work queue > already. We don't need this change to avoid unnecessary risk. > In theory, I am not against this change. I have to agree with that. For waits from work queues it is usually best to implicitly use un-interruptible waits for documentation purposes. In other words even when we are sure that the code can't receive a signal we should write it conservatively. Christian. > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com > <http://www.amd.com> > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer > > > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/attachments/20170501/5033dcbe/attachment.html>
