On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 11:17:10AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > That neatly explains the WARN. Not too happy about accumulating lots of > > backing storage specific processing into free_object, but that can be > > fixed up later (there is an obj->ops->release() pending). > > I'm more irked with the semantic overloading of object pinning. Might > be cleaner to otherwise mark stolen obejcts as not shrinkable instead > of pinning them for their entire lifetime. But we can bikeshed that > later on ;-) Some merit to that argument, but it still feels correct to say that the stolen pages are pinned for their lifetime. Given obj->ops->release(), it does actually become simpler to not mess around with pin_count. So later it is. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
