On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 12:14:55PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Reading a single value from the object, the locking only provides futile > > protection against userspace races. The locking is useless so remove it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 17 ++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 2b2b74dbb446..d071d0af2a6c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -3983,17 +3983,10 @@ int i915_gem_get_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device > > *dev, void *data, > > { > > struct drm_i915_gem_caching *args = data; > > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > > - int ret; > > - > > - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > > > obj = to_intel_bo(drm_gem_object_lookup(dev, file, args->handle)); > > - if (&obj->base == NULL) { > > - ret = -ENOENT; > > - goto unlock; > > - } > > + if (&obj->base == NULL) > > + return -ENOENT; > > > > switch (obj->cache_level) { > > Wrap this in ACCESS_ONCE, just for documentation purpose? Can do while > applying if you ack.
I was going to but I thought obj->cache_level was another bitfield... It is :| -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
