On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:00:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 03:34:55PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:53:10AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > > From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Let's make sure the future Paulos don't forget that we need > > > struct_mutex when touching dev_priv->mm.stolen. > > > > As I elluded to in patch 5, I think the stolen warns are a misstep. > > Imo switching to a separate stolen_mutex should be a separate patch, this > just documents the current rules. Which seems fine to me. Introducing a stolen mutex won't be a very much larger patch, and the current locking rules are an impediment for use elsewhere. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
