On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
2012/11/7 Imre Deak imre.deak@intel.com
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 18:31 +0900, Inki Dae wrote:
2012/11/2 Imre Deak imre.deak@intel.com The patchset adds the missing event_lock when accessing the vblank_event_list in drm_vblank_off() and as preparation for this also fixes a few other issues in the exynos driver. This is also a dependency for Rob Clark's drm_send_vblank_event() rework as that would trigger a warning for the unhold event_lock without this changeset. The exynos changes are only compile tested, the rest is tested on an Intel IVB machine on top of drm-intel-nightly + drm_send_vblank_event() rework, with i-g-t/flip_test. Hi Imre, Works fine. But we should wait for Rob's patch set to be merged to -next, and this may be rebased on top of latest Rob's patch set again.
Ok, thanks for checking this. I assume then that this patchset will get merged through your tree.
I think Rob's patchset depends on this, so ideally this should go first. Otherwise the i915 driver would trigger the WARN in his patchset due to the unheld event_lock.
Ok, but I merge it first, shouldn't Rob's patch set be rebased? Anyway this is minor issue so I could resolve it. And it seems like that your patch set has no dependency of Rob's. I mean that your patch set worked fine without Rob's.
I think there should be no hard dependency on my patch set.. the only connection is that my patchset without this patch will start showing the WARN_ON() traces
BR, -R
Thanks, Inki Dae
--Imre
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel