On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > I haven't looked into the code for a while, but isn't it possible to use > a spinlock (_bh) for ring protection?
Because we may have to wait for the hardware to drain the ring, it wouldn't be a good idea to hold a spinlock. In the worst case, with the hardware locked up, you will have wedged the entire machine. > Or perhaps even the hardware ring lock bit? Or are you protecting other > things with the ring mutex as well? It can still take a long time to wait for the hardware, so we want to allow other tasks to run. Using the separate high-priority ring will allow us to insert commands into that ring and have it automatically interrupt the main ring execution, all without needing to wait for access to the main ring. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
-- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
