On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 06:36:52PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some > > > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no > > > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like > > > to get at least the others considered. > > > > Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking > > mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so: > > > > - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it > > as-is. Your decision if you want to respin. > > I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell. Sure > > - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path > > Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc. > > Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit > more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so > they're not holding up the others. > > > - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too, > > this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the > > __mmu_notifier function > > To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also > wrapped around invalidate_range_end? Yes, the locking context of _range_start and _range_end should be identical, last time I checked callers this was the case. So, just add it to __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end() outside the SRCU as there is no reason to burden debug kernel callers twice when mmu notifiers are not enabled Jason _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
