On Friday 18 December 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
This looks good, I've taken this and I've squashed
the generic pieces of your RFC into this (i.e.
I haven't modified the drivers, but just added the
flag to allow the ioctls to be unlocked if the driver
selects them).
Do you think we should
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 18 December 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
This looks good, I've taken this and I've squashed
the generic pieces of your RFC into this (i.e.
I haven't modified the drivers, but just added the
flag to allow the ioctls to be unlocked if the driver
selects them).
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
drm_ioctl is called with the Big Kernel Lock held,
which shows up very high in statistics on vfs_ioctl.
Moving the lock into the drm_ioctl function itself
makes sure we blame the right subsystem and it gets
us one step
drm_ioctl is called with the Big Kernel Lock held,
which shows up very high in statistics on vfs_ioctl.
Moving the lock into the drm_ioctl function itself
makes sure we blame the right subsystem and it gets
us one step closer to eliminating the locked version
of fops-ioctl.
Since drm_ioctl does
