On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:29:21AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> Jumping in after a couple of weeks where I've paged most everything
> out of my brain ...
>
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:13:35AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > The
Hi,
Jumping in after a couple of weeks where I've paged most everything
out of my brain ...
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 10:43, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:13:35AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > The proposed patches might very well encode the wrong contract, that's
> > > all up
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:12 PM Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-19 10:43:09)
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:13:35AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-19 09:51:59)
> > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM Chris Wilson
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:13:35AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-19 09:51:59)
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM Chris Wilson
> > wrote:
> > > Forcing a generic primitive to always be part of the same global map is
> > > horrible.
> >
> > And no concrete example
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Stone (2020-06-11 10:01:46)
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 09:44, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:01, Chris Wilson
> > > wrote:
> > > > Introducing a global lockmap that cannot capture the rules
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:29 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 11/06/2020 12:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> >>> wrote:
>
>
>
On 11/06/2020 12:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
>> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
>>> wrote:
On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Design is similar to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:36 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
>
On 10/06/2020 16:17, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with
>>> some twists:
>>>
>>> - We use a read-lock for the
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 09:44, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 18:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Introducing a global lockmap that cannot capture the rules correctly,
>
> Can you document the rules all drivers should be following then,
> because from here it looks to get refactored
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
>
> On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > 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
On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:27 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-06-04 10:21:46)
> > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:57 AM Thomas Hellström (Intel)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/4/20 10:12 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Thread A:
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(A);
13 matches
Mail list logo
