On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:19:51AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> index a0b1fa8a3224..b3fd6aac93bc 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> @@ -233,10 +233,26 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> int ____i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
> int __i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
>
> +enum i915_mm_subclass { /* lockdep subclass for obj->mm.lock/struct_mutex */
> + I915_MM_NORMAL = 0,
> + /*
> + * Only used by struct_mutex, when called "recursively" from
> + * direct-reclaim-esque. Safe because there is only every one
> + * struct_mutex in the entire system. */
> + I915_MM_SHRINKER = 1,
> + /*
> + * Used for obj->mm.lock when allocating pages. Safe because the object
> + * isn't yet on any LRU, and therefore the shrinker can't deadlock on
> + * it. As soon as the object has pages, obj->mm.lock nests within
> + * fs_reclaim.
> + */
> + I915_MM_GET_PAGES = 1,
Those comments are inconsistently styled; if you move them, might as
well fix that too :-)
> +};
> +
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
