From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/ttm: remove EBUSY handling in ttm_execbuf_util
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:55:25 +0200
Message-ID: <50327A0D.7080805@canonical.com>
References: <50323EAC.5060107@canonical.com>
	<CAH3drwbPZsY+B1qZ8ijkJKfxZUUEqW0LnQ9M=Mb=XyshnhiDVA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com
	[91.189.89.112])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D830C9E85D
	for <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH3drwbPZsY+B1qZ8ijkJKfxZUUEqW0LnQ9M=Mb=XyshnhiDVA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel>,
	<mailto:dri-devel-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Hey,

Op 20-08-12 17:15, Jerome Glisse schreef:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com> wrote:
>> How is this different from just calling with no_wait == false?
>> As far as I can tell, both paths end up with the same result..
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
> NAK this seriously modify the behavior. The ttm_eu_del_from_lru_locked
> part is important. It must happen with lru lock held and without any
> dropping of this lock prior to wait for bo unreserve.
>

You're right, I missed the part where it removed those, causing the later
patch to be wrong too. However I  still think the code can be made more
readable. Wouldn't it be better if it used the unlocked variants instead?
It would save a lot of extra list traversals, and you could drop
removed, reserved and put_count from ttm_validate_buffer.

~Maarten