On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:55:12AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c b/drivers/gp
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:55:12AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
> >> index 6cd4af4..4502e4b 100644
> >>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
>> index 6cd4af4..4502e4b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:29:31PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:49:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> If there is a copy_from_user() variant that will return an error
> >> instead of blocking, I think that is really what I
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:31:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 03:24:38PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>
> > hmm, looks like, at least on arm (not sure about arm64),
> >
> > #define __copy_from_user_inatomic __copy_from_user
> >
> > ie. copy_from_user() minus the access_ok() and m
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:49:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> If there is a copy_from_user() variant that will return an error
>> instead of blocking, I think that is really what I want so I can
>> implement a slow-path that drops the spin-lock tem
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 03:24:38PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> hmm, looks like, at least on arm (not sure about arm64),
>
> #define __copy_from_user_inatomic __copy_from_user
>
> ie. copy_from_user() minus the access_ok() and memset in the
> !access_ok() path.. but maybe what I want is just the
>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:49:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that I shouldn't fix it (although not quite sure how
>> yet.. taking/dropping the spinlock inside the loop is not a good
>> option from a performance standpoint). What
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:49:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> I'm not saying that I shouldn't fix it (although not quite sure how
> yet.. taking/dropping the spinlock inside the loop is not a good
> option from a performance standpoint). What I am saying is that this
> is not something that can ha
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:08:46AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Vaishali Thakkar
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering about the call to copy_from_
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:08:46AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Vaishali Thakkar
>> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I was wondering about the call to copy_from_user in function
>> > submit_lookup_objects for drive
>> >
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:08:46AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Vaishali Thakkar
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was wondering about the call to copy_from_user in function
> > submit_lookup_objects for drive
> > /gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c It calls copy_from_user[1]
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Vaishali Thakkar
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering about the call to copy_from_user in function
> submit_lookup_objects for drive
> /gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c It calls copy_from_user[1] in a spin_lock,
> which is not normally
> allowed, due to the possibili
13 matches
Mail list logo