On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 08:05:42AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:56:02 +0200, Paul Menzel
> wrote:
> But Ben... I seemed to have missed the real reason why we need the
> spinlock. You have to remind me or else I will keep whining on like a
> broken record. ;-)
> -Chris
>
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:56:02 +0200, Paul Menzel
wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 11:13 -0700 schrieb Ben Widawsky:
> > userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs.
> >
> > v2:
> > use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex
>
> in my opinion these remarks shou
Dear Ben,
Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 11:13 -0700 schrieb Ben Widawsky:
> userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs.
>
> v2:
> use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex
in my opinion these remarks should not go into the commit message.
Reading the commit log the reader is not i
userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs.
v2:
use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex
v3:
spin locks are acquired by the get/put functions now
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 73 +++
1 files changed, 73 in
userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs.
v2:
use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 77 +++
1 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/
