From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906296
Sig
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
From: Jerome Glisse
We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
enforce both of this constraint.
v2: actually test build it
Fix https://bugzilla.redhat.com
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
> From: Jerome Glisse
>
> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
> memory while holding the spinlock. This patch make sure we
> enforce both of this constraint.
>
> v2:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>
>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't want to allocate
>> memory while holding the spinlock. This p
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM, wrote:
>>> From: Jerome Glisse
>>>
>>> We need to take reference on the sync object while holding the
>>> fence spinlock but at the same time we don't
30 matches
Mail list logo