[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915: Remove irq-related FIXME in reset code

[Rodrigo Vivi]

I believe this patch is on the wrong series, right?

I'm afraid I don't know what was this race neither the two-step reset
to be able to review this comment remove.
Please give me some pointers to check that.


On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> With the two-step reset counter increments which braket the actual
> reset code and the subsequent wake-up we're guaranteeing that all the
> lockless waiters _will_ be woken up. And since we unconditionally bail
> out of waits with -EAGAIN (or -EIO) in that case there is not risk of
> lost interrupt enabling bits when the lockless wait code races against
> a gpu reset.
>
> Let's remove this FIXME as resolved then.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> index cc6c51107047..89741e6e2d08 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> @@ -878,12 +878,6 @@ int i915_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
>         }
>
>         /*
> -        * FIXME: This races pretty badly against concurrent holders of
> -        * ring interrupts. This is possible since we've started to drop
> -        * dev->struct_mutex in select places when waiting for the gpu.
> -        */
> -
> -       /*
>          * rps/rc6 re-init is necessary to restore state lost after the
>          * reset and the re-install of gt irqs. Skip for ironlake per
>          * previous concerns that it doesn't respond well to some forms
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br