On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:31:26AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Vetter
>> wrote:
>> > There's not really any value in stating that no locking is needed. And
>> > even if the comment is useful, a check
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:31:26AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
> > There's not really any value in stating that no locking is needed. And
> > even if the comment is useful, a check for the right mutex at the
> > beginning of the function is
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> There's not really any value in stating that no locking is needed. And
> even if the comment is useful, a check for the right mutex at the
> beginning of the function is better since that can't be ingored as
> easily as a bit of documentatio
There's not really any value in stating that no locking is needed. And
even if the comment is useful, a check for the right mutex at the
beginning of the function is better since that can't be ingored as
easily as a bit of documentation.
Note that drm_mode_probed_add in drm_crtc.c is also changed,
