Hey, Op 20-08-12 17:15, Jerome Glisse schreef: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Maarten Lankhorst > <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> How is this different from just calling with no_wait == false? >> As far as I can tell, both paths end up with the same result.. >> >> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > NAK this seriously modify the behavior. The ttm_eu_del_from_lru_locked > part is important. It must happen with lru lock held and without any > dropping of this lock prior to wait for bo unreserve. > You're right, I missed the part where it removed those, causing the later patch to be wrong too. However I still think the code can be made more readable. Wouldn't it be better if it used the unlocked variants instead? It would save a lot of extra list traversals, and you could drop removed, reserved and put_count from ttm_validate_buffer. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
