On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:27:24 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:18:03AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > index 316603e..8cac87c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > > > @@ -1093,7 +1093,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void > > > *data, > > > &objects, eb, > > > exec, > > > > > > args->buffer_count); > > > - BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev->struct_mutex)); > > > + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev->struct_mutex)); > > > > I think this can be dropped after close inspection of the call path. > > > > Is that right? There are definitely cases where the mutex is released > and not reacquired. You would know better than I if those cases can > occur in a normal system. Assuming they can, Won't we just BUG_ON when > we try to release struct_mutex?
This particular BUG_ON() I added at Daniel's request to clarify the reservation fallback logic. Code inspection should be sufficient to verify that the BUG_ON() is not required, and by now we should be happy that we didn't miss anything. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
