On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:23 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> >> unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> >> Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection witho
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
>> unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
>> Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
>> this patch.
>>
>> Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function mo
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 09:42 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> > Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
> > this patch.
> >
> > Process 1
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
> this patch.
>
> Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
>
unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
this patch.
Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
2-spin_lock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
3
