On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:02:18AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:14:54AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:35AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > index 4447e73b54db..73c61b94f7fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> > > @@ -13315,23 +13309,15 @@ static int intel_atomic_prepare_commit(struct
> > > drm_device *dev,
> > >
> > > ret = __i915_wait_request(intel_plane_state->wait_req,
> > > true, NULL, NULL);
> > > -
> > > - /* Swallow -EIO errors to allow updates during hw
> > > lockup. */
> > > - if (ret == -EIO)
> > > - ret = 0;
> > > -
> > > - if (ret)
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > + drm_atomic_helper_cleanup_planes(dev, state);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > break;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - if (!ret)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > - drm_atomic_helper_cleanup_planes(dev, state);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > Sneaking in lockless waits! Separate patch please.
>
> No, it is just badly written code. The wait is already lockless but the
> lock is dropped and retaken around the error paths in such a manner that
> you cannot see this from a glimpse.
Indeed lack of diff context made me all confused, I stand corrected. Looks
good.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
