On 2015年12月01日 16:18, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 1 December 2015 at 03:26, Mark Yao<mark....@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>+static void rockchip_atomic_wait_for_complete(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>+{
>+ struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>+ struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>+ int i;
>+
>+ for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>+ if (!crtc->state->active)
>+ continue;
>+
>+ WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(crtc));
>+ }
>+
>+ for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>+ if (!crtc->state->active)
>+ continue;
>+
>+ rockchip_crtc_wait_for_update(crtc);
>+ }
I'd be much more comfortable if this passed in an explicit pointer to
state, or an address to wait for, rather than have wait_for_complete
dig out state with no locking. The latter is potentially racy for
async operations.
Hi Daniel
"if this passed in an explicit pointer to state, or an address to
wait for", I don't understand, can you point how it work?
--
Ｍark Yao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
