Op 22-11-12 21:29, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/22/2012 04:51 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrot
Op 22-11-12 21:29, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/22/2012 04:51 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrot
On 11/22/2012 04:51 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas
Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten
On 11/22/2012 04:51 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 1
Op 21-11-12 14:27, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten
On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hel
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lan
On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstr
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhors
On 11/21/2012 02:12 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 1
Op 21-11-12 13:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lan
On 11/21/2012 12:38 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 1
Hey,
Op 20-11-12 16:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhors
On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schree
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote
On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch looks mostly goo
Op 20-11-12 12:33, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch looks mostly good,
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
ove
On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
>>> overly complicated:
>>> Could this do, or am I missing s
On 11/20/2012 02:13 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2
Op 20-11-12 13:03, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote
On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_b
Op 20-11-12 12:33, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
> Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch looks mostly good,
Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>>> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
ove
On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
overly complicated:
Could this do, or am I missing something?
Actually
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
>> overly complicated:
>> Could this do, or am I missing something?
>>
>
> Actually, my version is bad, because ttm
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
> becomes overly complicated:
> Could this do, or am I missing something?
>
Actually, my version is bad, because ttm_bo_wait() is called with the
lru lock held.
/Thomas
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
becomes overly complicated:
Could this do, or am I missing something?
static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool interruptible,
bool no_wait_reserve,
Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes
>> overly complicated:
>> Could this do, or am I missing something?
>>
>
> Actually, my version is bad, because ttm
On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
becomes overly complicated:
Could this do, or am I missing something?
Actually, my version is bad, because ttm_bo_wait() is called with the
lru lock held.
/Thomas
st
Hi,
This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
becomes overly complicated:
Could this do, or am I missing something?
static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool interruptible,
bool no_wait_reserve,
I changed the hierarchy to make fence_lock the most inner lock,
instead of outer lock. This will simplify things slightly, and
hopefully makes it easier to make fence_lock global at one point
should it be needed.
To make things clearer, I change the order around in ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
and ttm_bo_c
I changed the hierarchy to make fence_lock the most inner lock,
instead of outer lock. This will simplify things slightly, and
hopefully makes it easier to make fence_lock global at one point
should it be needed.
To make things clearer, I change the order around in ttm_bo_cleanup_refs
and ttm_bo_c
34 matches
Mail list logo