Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.6.11.1-rt32

[John Kacur]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Carsten Emde wrote:

> Steven,
> 
> > I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.11.1-rt32 stable release.
> Unfortunately, there is another compile error:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function âi915_gem_wait_for_errorâ:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:118:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ârt_spin_lockâ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
>                  from include/linux/wait.h:24,
>                  from include/linux/fs.h:396,
>                  from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected âstruct spinlock_t *â but
> argument is of type âstruct raw_spinlock_t *â
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:120:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ârt_spin_unlockâ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
>                  from include/linux/wait.h:24,
>                  from include/linux/fs.h:396,
>                  from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected âstruct spinlock_t *â but
> argument is of type âstruct raw_spinlock_t *â
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function âi915_gem_check_wedgeâ:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1890:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ârt_spin_lockâ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
>                  from include/linux/wait.h:24,
>                  from include/linux/fs.h:396,
>                  from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected âstruct spinlock_t *â but
> argument is of type âstruct raw_spinlock_t *â
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1892:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ârt_spin_unlockâ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
>                  from include/linux/wait.h:24,
>                  from include/linux/fs.h:396,
>                  from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
>                  from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected âstruct spinlock_t *â but
> argument is of type âstruct raw_spinlock_t *â
> 
> I would propose to adopt the mechanism that Sebastian introduced in
> 3.8.4-rt2 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/26/600). The kernel compiles
> and runs without any problem with the below patch on a system that
> requires the i915 driver module.
> 
> 	-Carsten.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: gpu/i915: don't open code these things
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c |   10 ++--------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.6.11.1-rt32.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic
>  {
>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>  	struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;
> 
>  	if (!atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged))
> @@ -115,9 +114,7 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic
>  		 * end up waiting upon a subsequent completion event that
>  		 * will never happen.
>  		 */
> -		spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> -		x->done++;
> -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> +		complete(x);
>  	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1884,12 +1881,9 @@ i915_gem_check_wedge(struct drm_i915_pri
>  	if (atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged)) {
>  		struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion;
>  		bool recovery_complete;
> -		unsigned long flags;
> 
>  		/* Give the error handler a chance to run. */
> -		spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> -		recovery_complete = x->done > 0;
> -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> +		recovery_complete = completion_done(x);
> 
>  		/* Non-interruptible callers can't handle -EAGAIN, hence
> return
>  		 * -EIO unconditionally for these. */
> 
> 

Is there a reason you left off the last hunk?

@@ -4366,7 +4360,7 @@ static bool mutex_is_locked_by(struct mu
 	if (!mutex_is_locked(mutex))
 		return false;
 
-#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES)
+#if (defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES)) && 
!defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE)
 	return mutex->owner == task;
 #else
 	/* Since UP may be pre-empted, we cannot assume that we own the 
lock */