Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 05:37:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:19 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:13 AM Daniel Vetter > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Could we merge this

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 02:39, Christian König wrote: > > Am 13.07.20 um 18:26 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > Hi Christian, > > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:57:21PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > >> > >> This way we could have the

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

Am 13.07.20 um 18:26 schrieb Daniel Vetter: Hi Christian, On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:57:21PM +0200, Christian König wrote: Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the stuff before we do this? Discussions

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

Hi Christian, On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 04:57:21PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the > stuff before we do this? Discussions died out a bit, do you consider this a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:32:41AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:13, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König > > wrote: > > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > > > > > This way we could have the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

Hi, On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:13, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König > wrote: > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > > > This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the > > stuff before we do this? > >

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:19 PM Alex Deucher wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:13 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König > > wrote: > > > > > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > > > > > This way we could have the checks

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:13 AM Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König > wrote: > > > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > > > This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the > > stuff before we do this? > >

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König wrote: > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the > stuff before we do this? Since it's fully opt-in annotations nothing blows up if we don't merge any

Re: [PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the stuff before we do this? Thanks, Christian. Am 07.07.20 um 22:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter: Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with

[PATCH 01/25] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations

Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with some twists: - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that this explicit annotation can be more liberally sprinkled around. With read locks lockdep isn't going to complain if the read-side isn't