Thanks for reviewing, Daniel.
On 6/23/21 5:09 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
+ unsigned int mem_flags:2;
Is the entire bitfield array all protected by dma_resv_lock? If not I'd
just go with a full field, avoids headaches and all that.
Also kerneldoc for this would be really sweet. Means some work to get it
going,
Yeah, late documentation review comments after v9 ought to be forbidden ;)
but somewhere we need to stop hacking together undocumented ad-hoc
locking schemes :-/
Hmm, this was intended to replace the change of and access of object ops
*without* the lock held and with proper asserts added in the accessors,
so it was not really intended to be an ad-hoc locking scheme, It's
simply placement related things are updated under the lock.
I'll update the code and resend.
/Thomas
