On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 03:10:21PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> It was changed to GFP_ATOMIC in commit ec2f0577c (add & use
> virtio_gpu_queue_fenced_ctrl_buffer) because the allocation happened
> with a spinlock held. That was no longer true after commit
> 9fdd90c0f (add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence()).
On 03.05.19 16:31, Emil Velikov wrote:
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 23:10, Chia-I Wu wrote:
It was changed to GFP_ATOMIC in commit ec2f0577c (add & use
virtio_gpu_queue_fenced_ctrl_buffer) because the allocation happened
with a spinlock held. That was no longer true after commit
9fdd90c0f (add virt
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 23:10, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>
> It was changed to GFP_ATOMIC in commit ec2f0577c (add & use
> virtio_gpu_queue_fenced_ctrl_buffer) because the allocation happened
> with a spinlock held. That was no longer true after commit
> 9fdd90c0f (add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence()).
>
> Signed
Hey Chia-I,
This looks good to me, I can't find any spinlocks being held
during that allocation.
Reviewed-by: Robert Foss
On 30.04.19 00:10, Chia-I Wu wrote:
It was changed to GFP_ATOMIC in commit ec2f0577c (add & use
virtio_gpu_queue_fenced_ctrl_buffer) because the allocation happened
with a
It was changed to GFP_ATOMIC in commit ec2f0577c (add & use
virtio_gpu_queue_fenced_ctrl_buffer) because the allocation happened
with a spinlock held. That was no longer true after commit
9fdd90c0f (add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence()).
Signed-off-by: Chia-I Wu
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann
Cc: Gustavo Padovan
C