On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > Am 20.02.2018 um 15:54 schrieb Peter Zijlstra: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:34:07PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > > > > OK, but neither case would in fact need the !ctx case right? That's just > > > > there for completeness sake? > > > Unfortunately not. TTM uses trylock to lock BOs which are about to be > > > evicted to make room for all the BOs locked with a ctx. > > > > > > I need to be able to distinct between the BOs which are trylocked and those > > > which are locked with a ctx. > > > > > > Writing this I actually noticed the current version is buggy, cause even > > > when we check the mutex owner we still need to make sure that the ctx in the > > > lock is NULL. > > Hurm... I can't remember why trylocks behave like that, and it seems > > rather unfortunate / inconsistent. > > Actually for me that is rather fortunate, cause I need to distinct between > the locks acquired through trylock and lock. I suppose that would always be possible using: ww_mutex_trylock(.ctx=NULL), and it could be that there simply weren't any immediate uses for a !NULL trylock and it was thus not implemented. But that is all very long ago.. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
