On 05/06/2015 04:56 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 11:57:42AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 05/05/2015 11:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:36:24AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 05/04/2015 12:52 AM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
On 04/16/2015 03:03 PM, Daniel
On 05/04/2015 12:52 AM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
On 04/16/2015 03:03 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:30:55AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 04/15/2015 01:31 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:00:04AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 04/15/2015 03:17
On 05/05/2015 11:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 10:36:24AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 05/04/2015 12:52 AM, Mario Kleiner wrote:
On 04/16/2015 03:03 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:30:55AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 04/15/2015 01:31 PM, Daniel
On 05/05/2015 11:57 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 05/05/2015 11:42 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
I'm also somewhat confused about how you to a line across both cpus for
barriers because barriers only have cpu-local effects (which is why we
always need a barrier on both ends of a transaction).
I'm
that it is in the comment is
incorrect).
A spin unlock operation is always a write barrier.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
+}
+
/**
* drm_update_vblank_count - update the master vblank counter
* @dev: DRM device
@@ -93,7 +120,7 @@ module_param_named(timestamp_monotonic,
drm_timestamp_monotonic
: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com
Cc: Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net
Cc: Peter Hurley pe...@hurleysoftware.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vet...@intel.com
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_irq.c | 95
+--
include/drm/drmP.h
On 09/12/2014 01:25 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:03:51PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:04 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 05:34:56PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 04:23:29PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12
missed that one, that's actually better I think. I'll drop my
patch here.
I thought assert_spin_lock was the preferred form?
Actually, lockdep_assert_held() is the preferred form.
See https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/3/171
Regards,
Peter Hurley
___
Intel-gfx
On 09/11/2013 03:31 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
[+cc dri-devel]
On 09/11/2013 11:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:16:43 -0400
Peter Hurley pe...@hurleysoftware.com wrote:
The funny part is, there's a comment there that shows that this was
done even for PREEMPT_RT
On 09/17/2013 04:55 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Peter Hurley pe...@hurleysoftware.com wrote:
On 09/11/2013 03:31 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
[+cc dri-devel]
On 09/11/2013 11:38 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:16:43 -0400
Peter Hurley pe
10 matches
Mail list logo
