On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:14:55PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Reading a single value from the object, the locking only provides futile
> > protection against userspace races. The locking is useless so remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 17 ++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index 2b2b74dbb446..d071d0af2a6c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -3983,17 +3983,10 @@ int i915_gem_get_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_gem_caching *args = data;
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > - int ret;
> > -
> > - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> >
> > obj = to_intel_bo(drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file, args->handle));
> > - if (&obj->base == NULL) {
> > - ret = -ENOENT;
> > - goto unlock;
> > - }
> > + if (&obj->base == NULL)
> > + return -ENOENT;
> >
> > switch (obj->cache_level) {
>
> Wrap this in ACCESS_ONCE, just for documentation purpose? Can do while
> applying if you ack.
I was going to but I thought obj->cache_level was another bitfield... It
is :|
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
