On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:54:02PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> cool, thanks for the detailed explanation.
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:11:16PM -0800, Rodrigo
cool, thanks for the detailed explanation.
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:11:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> I believe this patch is on the wrong series, right?
>
> It's in here since I've spotted the FIXME while re
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:11:16PM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> I believe this patch is on the wrong series, right?
It's in here since I've spotted the FIXME while removing ums crap.
> I'm afraid I don't know what was this race neither the two-step reset
> to be able to review this comment remove
I believe this patch is on the wrong series, right?
I'm afraid I don't know what was this race neither the two-step reset
to be able to review this comment remove.
Please give me some pointers to check that.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> With the two-step reset counter
With the two-step reset counter increments which braket the actual
reset code and the subsequent wake-up we're guaranteeing that all the
lockless waiters _will_ be woken up. And since we unconditionally bail
out of waits with -EAGAIN (or -EIO) in that case there is not risk of
lost interrupt enabli
