On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:49:36 +0300 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> The preempt_disable/enable is not needed. The spinlock serves the same > purpose already. As stated, that was only for the -rt patch, as spin_lock_irqsave does not disable preemption nor does it even disable interrupts. But I agree, the added preempt_disable() should be sent to us to keep in the -rt patch itself. We really appreciate that you are thinking about us :-) But something like this will just confuse the mainline folks. Having a "preempt_disable_rt()" would make a lot more sense (which exists in the -rt patch). > > As far as ktime_get(), I've used it from spinlocked/irq disabled sections > and so far haven't seen it do bad things. But would be nice to get some > official statement to that effect. It's just a read seqlock. It may do a few loops to get the correct time, but it's fine to have in a preempt/irq disabled section. -- Steve _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
