On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:38:21AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 08:55:58AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:04:17PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Though we only walk the kernel_fb_helper_list inside a panic (or single > > > thread debugging), we still need to protect the list manipulation on > > > creating/removing a framebuffer device in order to prevent list > > > corruption. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I guess this explains the moved hunk in patch 1. Still feels misplaced, > > but with or without moving that around: > > No, that had to be moved to pull the register_framebuffer out from > underneath the lock (as it causes a lock recursion into the fbdev trying > to do a modeset). Ah right, I missed that. Can you pls add that the commit message and address Jani's question/comment when resending? Then I can pluck these 3 up. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
