On ma, 2016-11-07 at 13:59 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> @@ -56,6 +61,24 @@ int i915_gem_timeline_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +int i915_gem_timeline_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> + struct i915_gem_timeline *timeline,
> + const char *name)
> +{
> + static struct lock_class_key class;
> + return __i915_gem_timeline_init(i915, timeline, name,
> + &class, "timeline");
> +}
> +
> +int i915_gem_timeline_init__global(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> +{
> + static struct lock_class_key class;
> + return __i915_gem_timeline_init(i915,
> + &i915->gt.global_timeline,
> + "[execution]",
> + &class, "global-timeline");
> +}
> +
These names might have potential to be confusing in lockdep splat,
don't you think?
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct i915_gem_timeline {
> int i915_gem_timeline_init(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> struct i915_gem_timeline *tl,
> const char *name);
> +int i915_gem_timeline_init__global(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
I'm not super fond of this function name either :P But init_timeline vs
timeline_init is also confusing.
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
