On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Carsten Emde wrote:
> Steven, > > > I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.11.1-rt32 stable release. > Unfortunately, there is another compile error: > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function ‘i915_gem_wait_for_error’: > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:118:3: warning: passing argument 1 of > ‘rt_spin_lock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0, > from include/linux/wait.h:24, > from include/linux/fs.h:396, > from include/drm/drmP.h:47, > from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28: > include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but > argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:120:3: warning: passing argument 1 of > ‘rt_spin_unlock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0, > from include/linux/wait.h:24, > from include/linux/fs.h:396, > from include/drm/drmP.h:47, > from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28: > include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but > argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function ‘i915_gem_check_wedge’: > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1890:3: warning: passing argument 1 of > ‘rt_spin_lock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0, > from include/linux/wait.h:24, > from include/linux/fs.h:396, > from include/drm/drmP.h:47, > from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28: > include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but > argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1892:3: warning: passing argument 1 of > ‘rt_spin_unlock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default] > In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0, > from include/linux/wait.h:24, > from include/linux/fs.h:396, > from include/drm/drmP.h:47, > from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28: > include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but > argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’ > > I would propose to adopt the mechanism that Sebastian introduced in > 3.8.4-rt2 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/26/600). The kernel compiles > and runs without any problem with the below patch on a system that > requires the i915 driver module. > > -Carsten. > > > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> > Subject: gpu/i915: don't open code these things > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 10 ++-------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-3.6.11.1-rt32.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion; > - unsigned long flags; > int ret; > > if (!atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged)) > @@ -115,9 +114,7 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic > * end up waiting upon a subsequent completion event that > * will never happen. > */ > - spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags); > - x->done++; > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags); > + complete(x); > } > return 0; > } > @@ -1884,12 +1881,9 @@ i915_gem_check_wedge(struct drm_i915_pri > if (atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged)) { > struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion; > bool recovery_complete; > - unsigned long flags; > > /* Give the error handler a chance to run. */ > - spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags); > - recovery_complete = x->done > 0; > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags); > + recovery_complete = completion_done(x); > > /* Non-interruptible callers can't handle -EAGAIN, hence > return > * -EIO unconditionally for these. */ > > Is there a reason you left off the last hunk? @@ -4366,7 +4360,7 @@ static bool mutex_is_locked_by(struct mu if (!mutex_is_locked(mutex)) return false; -#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES) +#if (defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES)) && !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE) return mutex->owner == task; #else /* Since UP may be pre-empted, we cannot assume that we own the lock */
