On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 04:52 +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
commit 9e44af790f8bf8c3aa8a3101fd4f9bca2e932baa
Author: Keith Packard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Oct 16 21:18:27 2008 -0700
drm/i915: hold dev-struct_mutex and DRM lock during vblank ring
operations
To synchronize
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 10:54 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
Does that still provide good enough latency to prevent tearing though,
e.g. with reduced blanking modes?
It now depends on the scheduler and what else is running on the system.
Yes, this is not ideal, but the sketch of how DRI2 would work
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
I haven't looked into the code for a while, but isn't it possible to use
a spinlock (_bh) for ring protection?
Because we may have to wait for the hardware to drain the ring, it
wouldn't be a good idea to hold a spinlock. In the worst
Keith Packard wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:10 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
I haven't looked into the code for a while, but isn't it possible to use
a spinlock (_bh) for ring protection?
Because we may have to wait for the hardware to drain the ring, it
wouldn't be a good
Hi Linus,
Please pull the 'drm-next' branch from
ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/airlied/drm-2.6.git drm-next
This contains a lot of stability fixes from Intel for the GEM work along
with fixing some general drm issues.
Keith is working on a patchset to implement the new IO
