On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:36:35AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
> > we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
> > won't find it again whe
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
> we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
> won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
> create a 2nd vma. And sin
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:23:47AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
> we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
> won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
> create a 2nd vma. And sin
The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
create a 2nd vma. And since the code as-is isn't fit yet to deal with
more than one vma, hilarit
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:08:11AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
> we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
> won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
> create a 2nd vma. And sin
The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
create a 2nd vma. And since the code as-is isn't fit yet to deal with
more than one vma, hilarit
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:41:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > It's not clear from the commit message if this actually fixes the bug
> > for you (which you seemed to be able to reproduce). Did it?
>
> Nope, just hard looking at the Oopses, haven't yet reproduced the bug
> here. Bu
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:55:21AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
>> we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
>> won't find it again when execbuf g
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:55:21AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
> we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
> won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
> create a 2nd vma. And sin
The important bugfix here is that we must not unlink the vma when
we keep it around as a placeholder for the execbuf code. Since then we
won't find it again when execbuf gets interrupt and restarted and
create a 2nd vma. And since the code as-is isn't fit yet to deal with
more than one vma, hilarit
10 matches
Mail list logo
