[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

op 11-04-14 21:35, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 04/11/2014 08:09 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 11-04-14 12:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> On 04/11/2014 11:24 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > Hi, Maarten. > > Here I believe we

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/11/2014 08:09 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 11-04-14 12:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 04/11/2014 11:24 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi, Maarten. Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies.

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hi! On 04/11/2014 08:09 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 11-04-14 12:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 04/11/2014 11:24 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: Hi, Maarten. Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies.

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

op 11-04-14 12:11, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 04/11/2014 11:24 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> Hi, Maarten. >>> >>> Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies. >>> >>> First, it seems you're use a number of pointers as RCU

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

On 04/11/2014 11:24 AM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> Hi, Maarten. >> >> Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies. >> >> First, it seems you're use a number of pointers as RCU pointers without >> annotating them as such and use the

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

op 11-04-14 10:38, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > Hi, Maarten. > > Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies. > > First, it seems you're use a number of pointers as RCU pointers without > annotating them as such and use the correct rcu > macros when assigning those pointers. > >

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

Hi, Maarten. Here I believe we encounter a lot of locking inconsistencies. First, it seems you're use a number of pointers as RCU pointers without annotating them as such and use the correct rcu macros when assigning those pointers. Some pointers (like the pointers in the shared fence list) are

[PATCH 2/2] [RFC v2 with seqcount] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

op 10-04-14 13:08, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > On 04/10/2014 12:07 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Hey, >> >> op 10-04-14 10:46, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Ugh. This became more complicated than I thought, but I'm OK with moving >>> TTM over to fence while we sort out >>> how / if