On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 08:36:56AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 08:28:47AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > As we do the lockdep protected RCU lookup in a couple of places, > > refactor that code to a common helper i915_gem_active_raw().. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h > > index 3496e28785e7..6dd01cbf4895 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h > > @@ -360,6 +360,21 @@ __i915_gem_active_peek(const struct i915_gem_active *active) > > } > > > > /** > > + * i915_gem_active_raw - return the active request > > + * @active - the active tracker > > + * > > + * i915_gem_active_raw() returns the current request being tracked, or NULL. > > + * It does not obtain a reference on the request for the caller, so the caller > > + * must hold struct_mutex. > > + */ > > +static inline struct drm_i915_gem_request * > > +i915_gem_active_raw(const struct i915_gem_active *active, struct mutex *mutex) > > There's a rcu_dereference_raw helper which doesn't bother with any lockdep > checking. A bit confusing naming, otoh I couldn't come up with something > better. __i915_gem_active_protected() ? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
