From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maarten Lankhorst Subject: Re: ttm_write_lock uninterruptible sleep Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 11:50:04 +0100 Message-ID: <50EAA85C.4060104@canonical.com> References: <20130106190149.GV82219@kib.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com (youngberry.canonical.com [91.189.89.112]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29DEE608E for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 02:50:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130106190149.GV82219@kib.kiev.ua> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Konstantin Belousov Cc: Thomas Hellstrom , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Op 06-01-13 20:01, Konstantin Belousov schreef: > In ttm_write_lock(), for the interruptible sleep, the __ttm_write_lock() > is used as the sleep predicate. On the other hand, for the > uninterruptible case, __ttm_read_lock() is evaluated. It seems that > the code was not changed since the initial import at the end of 2009. > Shouldn't both cases use the same __ttm_write_lock() ? > Yes. :-) ~Maarten