On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:32:55AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:28:37AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
>
> > > I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is still the correct thing to do, and
> > > following down the normal cleanup paths is a good way to ensure the
> > > special cas
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 09:42:25AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 03:23:25PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > Add drm_modes_size_dumb(), a helper to calculate the dumb-buffer
> > scanline pitch and allocation size. Implementations of struct
> > drm_driver.dumb_create can c
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:28:37AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is still the correct thing to do, and
> > following down the normal cleanup paths is a good way to ensure the
> > special case doesn't have bugs. The primary difference is you want to
> > understand t
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 02:09:12PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > A driver can do a health check immediately in remove() and make a
> > decision if the device is alive or not to speed up removal in the
> > hostile hot unplug case.
>
> Hm ... I guess when you get an all -1 read you check with a s
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 04:19:30PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> Just like other busses, if PCI can't handle this at the core hotplug
> layer (i.e. by giving up new resources to new devices) then the bus core
> for it should handle this type of locking scheme as really, that feels
> wrong. A new device
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:46:29AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:00:09PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:32:55AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:28:37AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I wouldn't say it is
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:32:55AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:28:37AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
>
> > > I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is still the correct thing to do, and
> > > following down the normal cleanup paths is a good way to ensure the
> > > special cas
On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 03:00:09PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:32:55AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:28:37AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > > I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is still the correct thing to do, and
> > > > following down the
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:32:36AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:42:38AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > > Further, I just remembered, (Danilo please notice!) there is another
> > > related issue here that DMA mappings *may not* outlive remove()
> > > either. netdev had
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 03:23:25PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Add drm_modes_size_dumb(), a helper to calculate the dumb-buffer
> scanline pitch and allocation size. Implementations of struct
> drm_driver.dumb_create can call the new helper for their size
> computations.
>
> There is current
10 matches
Mail list logo
