2015-07-01 11:02 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. I wrote the stolen_mutex patches yesterday, I'll send them soon. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
