On ti, 2017-02-21 at 09:30 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > In a similar fashion to reservation_object_lock() and > reservation_object_unlock(), ww_mutex_trylock is also useful and so is > worth wrapping for consistency. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.sem...@linaro.org> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
<SNIP> > @@ -151,6 +151,26 @@ reservation_object_lock(struct reservation_object *obj, > } > > /** > + * reservation_object_trylock - trylock the reservation object > + * @obj: the reservation object > + * > + * Tries to lock the reservation object for exclusive access and > modification. > + * Note, that the lock is only against other writers, readers will run > + * concurrently with a writer under RCU. The seqlock is used to notify > readers > + * if they overlap with a writer. > + * > + * Also note that since no context is provided, no deadlock protection is > + * possible. > + * > + * Returns true if the lock was acquired, false otherwise. > + */ > +static inline bool I'd carry over the __must_check flag, with that; Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> Regards, Joonas > +reservation_object_trylock(struct reservation_object *obj) > +{ > + return ww_mutex_trylock(&obj->lock); > +} > + > +/** > * reservation_object_unlock - unlock the reservation object > * @obj: the reservation object > * -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel