On 10/27/20 5:25 PM, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
+
+ if (WARN_ON(!i915_gem_object_trylock(tl->hwsp_ggtt->obj)))
+ return -EBUSY;
I think we should either annotate this properly as an isolated lock,
or allow a silent -EBUSY.
This is done in a controlled selftest where we mock the entire i915
device, so normally this can't happen. :)
But if it does, we get erratic BAT failures, and if it indeed doesn't
happen, then an annotated isolated lock would guarantee that.
...but if we can't do that since we're actually not locking isolated, I
guess we have to leave it as is. (I presume I can't make you add /* Here
we should have needed a i915_do_ww() */ :D)
/Thomas
/Thomas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
