On ke, 2016-08-03 at 14:43 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. Yes, if there's something else to do too. But it's not a biggie with the function renamed; Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -Chris > -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
