On 12/11/2013 03:06 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:44:12PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:24:01PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
The update is horribly racy since it doesn't protect at all a
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:44:12PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:24:01PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > The update is horribly racy since it doesn't protect at all against
> > > concurrent closing of the
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:44:12PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:24:01PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > The update is horribly racy since it doesn't protect at all against
> > concurrent closing of the master fd. And it can't really since that
> > requires us to grab a mu
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 01:24:01PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> The update is horribly racy since it doesn't protect at all against
> concurrent closing of the master fd. And it can't really since that
> requires us to grab a mutex.
>
> Instead of jumping through hoops and offloading this to a wo
The update is horribly racy since it doesn't protect at all against
concurrent closing of the master fd. And it can't really since that
requires us to grab a mutex.
Instead of jumping through hoops and offloading this to a worker
thread just block this bit of code for the modesetting driver.
Repo
