On 09/12/2014 12:04 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 05:34:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 04:23:29PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:40:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>>> The comment says that the caller must hold the dev->event_lock >>>> spinlock, so let's enforce this. >>>> >>>> A quick audit over all driver shows that except for the one place in >>>> i915 which motivated this all callers fullfill this requirement >>>> already. >>> >>> Replace the rogue WARN_ON_SMP(!spin_is_locked(&dev->event_lock)) in >>> send_vblank_event() as well then. >> >> Meh, I've missed that one, that's actually better I think. I'll drop my >> patch here. > > I thought assert_spin_lock was the preferred form? Actually, lockdep_assert_held() is the preferred form. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/3/171 Regards, Peter Hurley _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
