On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:12:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > For consistency I guess we can ditch the dev parameter (and even then, the > ring would uniquely identify the device). Also, I guess you need to > explicitly pass in blocking, because mutex_is_locked is rather racy - > someone else could hold the mutex while we're waiting in a non-blocking > fashion. Meh, I suggested the race - I'd rather have a moment of confusion reading the trace than reading the code in 6 months time. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
