On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:37:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Now that the rps interrupt locking isn't clearly separated (at elast
> conceptually) from all the other interrupt locking having a different
> lock stopped making sense. With this we can (again) unifiy the
> ringbuffer irq refcounts w
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:37:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Now that the rps interrupt locking isn't clearly separated (at elast
> conceptually) from all the other interrupt locking having a different
> lock stopped making sense. With this we can (again) unifiy the
> ringbuffer irq refcounts w
Now that the rps interrupt locking isn't clearly separated (at elast
conceptually) from all the other interrupt locking having a different
lock stopped making sense. With this we can (again) unifiy the
ringbuffer irq refcounts without causing a massive confusion, but
that's for the next patch.
Sig
