On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:34:07PM +0100, Christian KÃnig wrote:
Hurm... I can't remember why trylocks behave like that, and it seemsOK, but neither case would in fact need the !ctx case right? That's justUnfortunately not. TTM uses trylock to lock BOs which are about to be
there for completeness sake?
evicted to make room for all the BOs locked with a ctx.
I need to be able to distinct between the BOs which are trylocked and those
which are locked with a ctx.
Writing this I actually noticed the current version is buggy, cause even
when we check the mutex owner we still need to make sure that the ctx in the
lock is NULL.
rather unfortunate / inconsistent.
Chris, Maarten, do either one of you remember?
I'm thinking that if we do acquire the trylock, the thing should join
the ctx such that a subsequent contending mutex_lock() can ww right.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel