On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 13:20 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> When writing to a drm_sched_entity's run-queue, writers are protected
> through the lock drm_sched_entity.rq_lock. This naming, however,
> frequently collides with the separate internal lock of struct
> drm_sched_
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
When writing to a drm_sched_entity's run-queue, writers are protected
through the lock drm_sched_entity.rq_lock. This naming, however,
frequently collides with the separate internal lock of struct
drm_sched_rq, resulting in uses like this:
spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock)
On 15/10/2024 12:56, Philipp Stanner wrote:
On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 11:46 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Christian suggested to rename the lock and improve the documentation
Let's move it to Annotators:
Suggested-by: Christian König
Ack.
(Otherwise some time in the fu
On Mon, 2024-10-14 at 11:46 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> Christian suggested to rename the lock and improve the documentation
Let's move it to Annotators:
Suggested-by: Christian König
(Otherwise some time in the future a Christian Kaiser might start
working on the s
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Christian suggested to rename the lock and improve the documentation of
what it protects. And to also re-order the structure members so all
protected by the lock are together in a block.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin
Cc: Christian König
Cc: Alex Deucher
Cc: Luben Tuikov
