From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915: make waiting trace events more useful Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 22:22:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1335993754_122897@CP5-2952> References: <1335738156-27706-3-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1335836423-1164-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <20120502211236.GC4101@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1510B9E9D2 for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120502211236.GC4101@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Daniel Vetter , Ben Widawsky Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:12:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > For consistency I guess we can ditch the dev parameter (and even then, the > ring would uniquely identify the device). Also, I guess you need to > explicitly pass in blocking, because mutex_is_locked is rather racy - > someone else could hold the mutex while we're waiting in a non-blocking > fashion. Meh, I suggested the race - I'd rather have a moment of confusion reading the trace than reading the code in 6 months time. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre