From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: Error checks in gen6_set_rps
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:37:44 +0200
Message-ID: <20120912213744.GT5533@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1347072225-10654-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1347072225-10654-6-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<275ffc$6hj53c@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com
	[209.85.212.171])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454CE9E8E2
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhq4 with SMTP id hq4so4815915wib.12
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <275ffc$6hj53c@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri,  7 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > With the new "standardized" sysfs interfaces we need to be a bit more
> > careful about setting the RPS values.
> > 
> > Because the sysfs code and the rps workqueue can run at the same time,
> > if the sysfs setter wins the race to the mutex, the workqueue can come
> > in and set a value which is out of range (ie. we're no longer protecting
> > by RPINTLIM).
> > 
> > I was not able to actually make this error occur in testing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> 
> Good catch, care to squeeze the comment into a single line ;-)
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Applied all patches to dinq up to this one here, thanks.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch