[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 19/29] drm/i915: Pass intel_context to intel_context_pin_lock()

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-10 13:49:32)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-10 13:45:05)
> > 
> > On 08/04/2019 10:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> > > index da342e9a8c2e..4f8ef45e6344 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> > > @@ -39,9 +39,17 @@ intel_context_lookup(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> > >    * can neither be bound to the GPU or unbound whilst the lock is held, i.e.
> > >    * intel_context_is_pinned() remains stable.
> > >    */
> > > -struct intel_context *
> > > -intel_context_pin_lock(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> > > -                    struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
> > > +static inline int intel_context_pin_lock(struct intel_context *ce)
> > > +     __acquires(ce->pin_mutex)
> > > +{
> > > +     return mutex_lock_interruptible(&ce->pin_mutex);
> > > +}
> > 
> > So if this is not getting the kref any more why are the other callers 
> > okay? In previous patch(es) some certainly looked like they assume pin 
> > implies a reference.
> 
> This is not 'pin' but locking the pinned state.
> Maybe lock_pin and unlock_pin? (I was going to say lock_pin_count, but
> it strictly does not prevent updates to pin_count, merely the transition
> to/from .pin_count == 0.)

Went with intel_context_lock_pinned() and intel_context_unlock_pinned().
-Chris