Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de> writes: > Am Dienstag, den 05.06.2018, 12:03 -0700 schrieb Eric Anholt: >> This isn't the first time I've had to argue to myself why the '++' was >> safe. > > And now you need to do the same thing with me... > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_fence.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_fence.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_fence.c >> index bfe31a89668b..6265e9ab4a13 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_fence.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_fence.c >> @@ -3,6 +3,9 @@ >> >> #include "v3d_drv.h" >> >> +/* Note that V3D fences are created during v3d_job_run(), so we're >> + * already implictly locked. >> + */ > I don't see where you would be locked in the job_run path. I think what > you mean is that this path needs no locks, as it is driven by a single > scheduler thread, right?
Yeah, it's only called from run_job, and run_job can't reenter.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
