On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so if the
> > vblank->count is incremented by an even numbe
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:36:44PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> > wrote:
> > > From: Ville Syrjälä
> > >
> > > The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 01:15:01PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 22-09-15 om 11:10 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> > wrote:
> >> From: Ville Syrjälä
> >>
> >> The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so
Op 22-09-15 om 11:10 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> wrote:
>> From: Ville Syrjälä
>>
>> The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so if the
>> vblank->count is incremented by an even number readers may end up see
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:43:52PM +0300, ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä
>
> The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so if the
> vblank->count is incremented by an even number readers may end up seeing
> the new vblank timestamp alongside the old vb
From: Ville Syrjälä
The vblank timestamp ringbuffer only has two entries, so if the
vblank->count is incremented by an even number readers may end up seeing
the new vblank timestamp alongside the old vblank counter value.
Fix the problem by storing the vblank counter in a ringbuffer as well,
a
