On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 02:20:27PM +0800, Jike Song wrote: > On 09/15/2014 08:55 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >Now we tackle the functions also called from interrupt handlers. > > > >- intel_check_page_flip is exclusively called from irq handlers, so a > > plain spin_lock is all we need. In i915_irq.c we have the convention > > to give all such functions an _irq_handler postfix, but that would > > look strange and als be a bit a misleading name. I've opted for a > > WARN_ON(!in_irq()) instead. > > Hi Daniel, > > Is it possible to use in_interrupt() instead? Sorry to tell that, in > our iGVT-g implementation, the host i915 irq handler needs to be called > in a non hardirq driven context. i.e. a tasklet or workqueue. Hm, why that? Depending upon how you do this you might break a lot of the interrupt related locking we have ... This is a crucial integration issue, which patch does that change? -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
