On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 02:29:51PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Chris Wilson
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:39:35PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> This is the alternative approach for solving a deadl
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 02:29:51PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:39:35PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> This is the alternative approach for solving a deadlock situation with
> >> array-fences.
> >>
> >> Currently wit
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:39:35PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> This is the alternative approach for solving a deadlock situation with
> array-fences.
>
> Currently with fence-array, we have a potential deadlock situation. If we
> fence_add_callback() on an array-fence, the array-fence's lock is aqu
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 12:39:35PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> This is the alternative approach for solving a deadlock situation with
>> array-fences.
>>
>> Currently with fence-array, we have a potential deadlock situation. If we
>> fence_ad
This is the alternative approach for solving a deadlock situation with
array-fences.
Currently with fence-array, we have a potential deadlock situation. If we
fence_add_callback() on an array-fence, the array-fence's lock is aquired
first, and in it's ->enable_signaling() callback, it will instal