On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 01:32:28PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 30.09.21 um 12:26 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 30.09.21 um 11:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Christian Kö
Am 30.09.21 um 12:26 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 30.09.21 um 11:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Totally forgotten to ping once more about that.
Michel has tested this now
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:48:42AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>
>
> Am 30.09.21 um 11:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Totally forgotten to ping once more about that.
> > >
> > > Michel has tested this now and I think we shou
Am 30.09.21 um 11:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Totally forgotten to ping once more about that.
Michel has tested this now and I think we should push it ASAP. So can I get
an rb?
spin_lock_irq(&dmabuf->poll.lock);
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Totally forgotten to ping once more about that.
>
> Michel has tested this now and I think we should push it ASAP. So can I get
> an rb?
spin_lock_irq(&dmabuf->poll.lock);
if (dcb->active)
Totally forgotten to ping once more about that.
Michel has tested this now and I think we should push it ASAP. So can I
get an rb?
Thanks,
Christian.
Am 23.07.21 um 10:04 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 2021-07-20 3:11 p.m., Christian König wrote:
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there
On 2021-07-20 3:11 p.m., Christian König wrote:
> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> problems
> in the implementation.
>
> First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
> makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
Then we should always also wait
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:21 PM Christian König
wrote:
> Just a gentle ping. Or have I missed your reply?
Nah just got overwhelmed with dma-resv discussion and took a break. I
still think some igt (or reviewing what we have) would be good. We
could also just merge Jason's import/export series, si
On 2021-07-09 2:07 p.m., Christian König wrote:
> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> problems
> in the implementation.
>
> First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
> makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then
Just a gentle ping. Or have I missed your reply?
Thanks,
Christian.
Am 09.07.21 um 14:07 schrieb Christian König:
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
Hi "Christian,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next]
[also build test WARNING on v5.13]
[cannot apply to linus/master next-20210709]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting pat
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
Then we should always also wait
Sorry that was the wrong patch.
Still not feeling that well :(
Christian.
Am 08.07.21 um 13:19 schrieb Christian König:
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
Then we should always also wait
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:31:43PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> problems
> in the implementation.
>
> First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
> makes only sense if you grab the referen
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
Then we should always also wait
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 4:22 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 30.06.21 um 16:07 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:36 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> >> problems
> >> in the implementation.
> >>
> >> Fi
Am 30.06.21 um 16:07 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:36 PM Christian König
wrote:
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sens
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 2:36 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> problems
> in the implementation.
>
> First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
> makes only sense if you grab the reference first
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
Then we should always also wait
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:42 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 23.06.21 um 13:30 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:17 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Am 22.06.21 um 19:02 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Christian König
> >>> wrote:
> Crap, h
Am 23.06.21 um 13:30 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:17 PM Christian König
wrote:
Am 22.06.21 um 19:02 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Christian König
wrote:
Crap, hit enter to early before adding a cover letter.
This is the same patch as before, but
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:17 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 22.06.21 um 19:02 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> >> Crap, hit enter to early before adding a cover letter.
> >>
> >> This is the same patch as before, but as requested I'm keepin
Am 22.06.21 um 19:02 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Christian König
wrote:
Crap, hit enter to early before adding a cover letter.
This is the same patch as before, but as requested I'm keeping the
exclusive fence handling as it is for now.
Daniel can you double check t
Hi "Christian,
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Christian-K-nig/dma-buf-fix-and-rework-dma_buf_poll-v3/20210622-210643
base: git://anongit.freedesktop.org/tegra/linux.git drm/tegra/for-next
config: i386-randconfig-m021-20210622 (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:07 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Crap, hit enter to early before adding a cover letter.
>
> This is the same patch as before, but as requested I'm keeping the
> exclusive fence handling as it is for now.
>
> Daniel can you double check this and/or make sure that it is tes
Crap, hit enter to early before adding a cover letter.
This is the same patch as before, but as requested I'm keeping the
exclusive fence handling as it is for now.
Daniel can you double check this and/or make sure that it is tested?
I only smoke tested it and the code is so complicated that
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the sequence
values.
It's also good practice to keep
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:21:17PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious
> problems
> in the implementation.
>
> First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
> makes only sense if you grab the referen
Hi "Christian,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on next-20210616]
[cannot apply to tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.13-rc6 v5.13-rc5
v5.13-rc4 v5.13-rc6]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitti
Hi "Christian,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on next-20210616]
[cannot apply to tegra-drm/drm/tegra/for-next linus/master v5.13-rc6 v5.13-rc5
v5.13-rc4 v5.13-rc6]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitti
Daniel pointed me towards this function and there are multiple obvious problems
in the implementation.
First of all the retry loop is not working as intended. In general the retry
makes only sense if you grab the reference first and then check the retry. Then
we skipped checking the exclusive fenc
33 matches
Mail list logo
