On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:16:10AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014-08-04 5:46 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: > > Since I've reworked psr support to no longer require x-tiling we don't > > check any state protected by the Giant GEM Lock. So drop that check. > > > > Also boo for lockdep_assert_held for not yelling when lockdep is > > disabled. > > > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > I was going to start reviewing it, but then I realized it's already merged. Oh, I've figured I'll sneak this one by the "danvet must have reviewed-by too" rule ;-) But I'll drop such patches asap if anyone spots something with them ofc. > Do we have any doc explaining all our locks/mutexes and what each one > is supposed to protect? Unfortunately not. It's also constantly changing (e.g. the recent introduction of the connection_mutex) and rather shockingly often not quite correct. Atm you need to dig through git history and for drm core locks through all drm drivers to figure this out :( > Anyway, the patch looks fine. I'll count this as an ack and added it, thanks. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
