On 10/03/2012 02:46 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
motivated by the
fact that o
Op 03-10-12 12:53, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom
>> wrote:
> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
> motivated by the
> fact that otherwise, in the generic re
On 10/03/2012 10:53 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
motivated by the
fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
annotated for a trylock and not a
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
>>> motivated by the
>>> fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
>>> annotated for a trylock and not a waiting lock, when it *is* in f
On 10/03/2012 09:54 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I
On 10/03/2012 09:57 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I '
Hey,
Op 03-10-12 09:45, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before
>>>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to l
On 10/02/2012 10:03 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before doing the
annotation
for a blocking acquire, and left trylock an
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 08:46:32AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> >I was doing a evil hack where I 'released' lru_lock to lockdep before doing
> >the annotation
> >for a blocking acquire, and left trylock annotations as they were. This made
> >
On 10/01/2012 11:47 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 28-09-12 21:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
select, so inline fallbacks are not
Op 28-09-12 21:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
>>> Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
>>> select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
>>>
On 09/29/2012 05:16 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 28-09-12 22:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
On 09/28/2012 09:42 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf sho
Op 28-09-12 22:10, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> On 09/28/2012 09:42 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
select, so inli
On 09/28/2012 09:42 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
will make it ob
On 09/28/2012 04:14 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Hey,
Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
will make it obvious what went wrong, instead of silently doing
Hey,
Op 28-09-12 14:41, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
> Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
> select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
> will make it obvious what went wrong, instead of silently doing
> nothing at runtime.
>
The whole patch s
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 02:41:48PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
> select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
> will make it obvious what went wrong, instead of silently doing
> nothing at runtime.
>
> Sign
Documentation says that code requiring dma-buf should add it to
select, so inline fallbacks are not going to be used. A link error
will make it obvious what went wrong, instead of silently doing
nothing at runtime.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst
---
include/linux/dma-buf.h | 99 -
19 matches
Mail list logo
