[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: No need to save/restore irq status in __i915_request_irq_complete

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>

It is always called from thread context.

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 1fd4128a10b1..b7ec6636e2a0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -4086,7 +4086,6 @@ __i915_request_irq_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
 	if (engine->irq_seqno_barrier &&
 	    test_and_clear_bit(ENGINE_IRQ_BREADCRUMB, &engine->irq_posted)) {
 		struct intel_breadcrumbs *b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
-		unsigned long flags;
 
 		/* The ordering of irq_posted versus applying the barrier
 		 * is crucial. The clearing of the current irq_posted must
@@ -4108,7 +4107,7 @@ __i915_request_irq_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
 		 * the seqno before we believe it coherent since they see
 		 * irq_posted == false but we are still running).
 		 */
-		spin_lock_irqsave(&b->irq_lock, flags);
+		spin_lock_irq(&b->irq_lock);
 		if (b->irq_wait && b->irq_wait->tsk != current)
 			/* Note that if the bottom-half is changed as we
 			 * are sending the wake-up, the new bottom-half will
@@ -4117,7 +4116,7 @@ __i915_request_irq_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
 			 * ourself.
 			 */
 			wake_up_process(b->irq_wait->tsk);
-		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&b->irq_lock, flags);
+		spin_unlock_irq(&b->irq_lock);
 
 		if (__i915_gem_request_completed(req, seqno))
 			return true;
-- 
2.9.3