On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:46:29 -0500
Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> > Mainly because you can sleep inside locked mutex and because spinlock
> > shouldn't
> > be used for too many lines of code (busy waiting etc.). I think ldd3 will be
> > more descriptive than me her
Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Mainly because you can sleep inside locked mutex and because spinlock
> shouldn't
> be used for too many lines of code (busy waiting etc.). I think ldd3 will be
> more descriptive than me here :).
Ok, I'll look into it.
Andrew, do you want us to respin the patch, or would yo
On 04/14/2008 04:49 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 04/14/2008 04:12 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Unfortunately, the author of the patch, York, is out this week, so I'll have to
take care of this. It'd be easier to modify rh_alloc() so that it doesn't
sleep, so that's what I'm going to do.
Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04/14/2008 04:12 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the author of the patch, York, is out this week, so I'll have
>> to
>> take care of this. It'd be easier to modify rh_alloc() so that it doesn't
>> sleep, so that's what I'm going to do.
>
> Anyway, why do you need t
On 04/14/2008 04:12 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Unfortunately, the author of the patch, York, is out this week, so I'll have to
take care of this. It'd be easier to modify rh_alloc() so that it doesn't
sleep, so that's what I'm going to do.
Anyway, why do you need the spin lock there (and not mutex)
Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04/14/2008 03:45 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/12/375
>> That email is dated 3/12 and those comments are about v1 of the patch. The
>> most
>> recent posted version is v5 and it addresses all these issues. See
>> http
On 04/14/2008 03:45 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Jiri Slaby wrote:
See
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/12/375
That email is dated 3/12 and those comments are about v1 of the patch. The most
recent posted version is v5 and it addresses all these issues. See
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/1/346
Ok, how i
Jiri Slaby wrote:
> See
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/12/375
That email is dated 3/12 and those comments are about v1 of the patch. The most
recent posted version is v5 and it addresses all these issues. See
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/1/346
--
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
_
On 04/14/2008 03:39 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Thanks. I've made a note that this patch has outstanding issues. Usually
this means that I'll defer merging it until they have been addressed:
either by fixing them or by successfully arguing against the objections.
Sorry, I m
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Thanks. I've made a note that this patch has outstanding issues. Usually
> this means that I'll defer merging it until they have been addressed:
> either by fixing them or by successfully arguing against the objections.
Sorry, I must have gotten out of sync. What are t
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:45:35 +0200 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03/12/2008 11:20 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 03/12/2008 10:43 PM, York Sun wrote:
> >> +static int fsl_diu_open(struct fb_info *info, int user)
> >> +{
> >> +struct mfb_info *mfbi = info->par;
> >> +int res = 0;
ping.
Seeing this in -mm yet. Are those comments all wrong? Are you working on it?
On 03/12/2008 11:20 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/12/2008 10:43 PM, York Sun wrote:
+static int fsl_diu_open(struct fb_info *info, int user)
+{
+struct mfb_info *mfbi = info->par;
+int res = 0;
+
+spin
Hi York,
Just a few things from a first pass.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:43:42 -0500 York Sun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +++ b/drivers/video/fsl-diu-fb.c
>
> +#include
Please include instead.
> +/* Align to 64-bit(8-byte), 32-byte, etc. */
> +static int allocate_buf(struct diu_addr *buf, u32
On 03/12/2008 10:43 PM, York Sun wrote:
+static int fsl_diu_open(struct fb_info *info, int user)
+{
+ struct mfb_info *mfbi = info->par;
+ int res = 0;
+
+ spin_lock(&diu_lock);
+ mfbi->count++;
+ if (mfbi->count == 1) {
+ DPRINTK("open plane index %d\n
14 matches
Mail list logo
