On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:44:56AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We are motivated to avoid using a bitfield for obj->active for a couple
> of reasons. Firstly, we wish to document our lockless read of obj->active
> using READ_ONCE inside i915_gem_busy_ioctl() and that requires an
> integral type (i.
We are motivated to avoid using a bitfield for obj->active for a couple
of reasons. Firstly, we wish to document our lockless read of obj->active
using READ_ONCE inside i915_gem_busy_ioctl() and that requires an
integral type (i.e. not a bitfield). Secondly, gcc produces abysmal code
when presented
