[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-24 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22:27PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > This is an equivalent

[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of > > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT. > > >

[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of > > WQ_NON_REENTRANT. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson Acked-by: Daniel

[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of > WQ_NON_REENTRANT. > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source

Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson

Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT.

Re: [PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:22:27PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: Hello, On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:56:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:40:57 -0700, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote: This is an equivalent

[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-22 Thread Tejun Heo
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c |6 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c index

[PATCH] i915: use alloc_ordered_workqueue() instead of explicit UNBOUND w/ max_active = 1

2012-08-22 Thread Tejun Heo
This is an equivalent conversion and will ease scheduled removal of WQ_NON_REENTRANT. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c |6 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c