On 2023/03/06 20:05, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2023, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
>>> {
>>> int err, i;
>>>
>>> + i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0);
>>
>> Oops. I forgot to add
>>
>>
On Fri, 03 Mar 2023, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
>> {
>> int err, i;
>>
>> +i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0);
>
> Oops. I forgot to add
>
> if (!i915_wq)
> return -ENOME
On 2023/03/03 19:11, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> @@ -79,6 +81,7 @@ static int __init i915_init(void)
> {
> int err, i;
>
> + i915_wq = alloc_workqueue("i915", 0, 0);
Oops. I forgot to add
if (!i915_wq)
return -ENOMEM;
here. But I'd like to wait for your response fo
Like commit c4f135d643823a86 ("workqueue: Wrap flush_workqueue() using a
macro") says, flush_scheduled_work() is dangerous and will be forbidden.
There was an attempt to remove flush_scheduled_work() from
intel_modeset_driver_remove_noirq(), but it went to backlog [1].
Now that i915 is about to b
