On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 04:30:35PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ke, 2016-08-03 at 13:04 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:56:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > static inline struct drm_i915_gem_request * > > > i915_gem_active_get_rcu(const struct i915_gem_active *active) > > Alternative name would be i915_gem_active_get_unlocked() > > (Starting to get too unwieldy.) > > It's less confusing. > > I assume you intend to extend the rcu_read_lock() section? Yes, I had intended to. At the moment, the other caller has been removed because I need the struct_mutex as an execbuf-barrier so as of now there was no value to using RCU there and reverted to simple form. I still think it is more flexible to allow the caller to control the locking. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
