Luca Barbieri wrote: >> Would nentry=list_first_entry(&entry->ddestroy, ....) work? >> > Yes, it seems a bit less intuitive, but if that's the accepted > practice, let's do that instead. > > >> Here nentry may have been removed from the list by another process, which >> would trigger the unnecessary call, mentioned above. >> > You are right. > > I attached a revised patch. > It's only compile tested, but the changes are small and it should > hopefully work. > Yes, it looks correct. Although it seems a little unintuitive to enter the loop with the spinlock held, and exit it with the spinlock not held. I've attached yet another patch to have that fixed. Could you take a look at whether it seems OK with you and, in that case, repost it for Dave?
> The whole function seems more complicated than needed, but I can't > find a way to do it with less code. If we could keep glob->lru_lock > while calling ttm_bo_cleanup_refs things would be much simpler, but > that would require intrusive changes and may not be possible. > Yes, one of the rules of TTM is to avoid calling any kref_put() function that may free an object with a spinlock or a mutex held, since the free function must be able to take whatever mutex or spinlock it likes, otherwise we'd end up in a complete mess of recursive locks and lock dependency errors. Since therefore ttm_bo_cleanup_refs would need to temporarily release any lock held at call time, we wouldn't be better off. /Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Throughout its 18-year history, RSA Conference consistently attracts the world's best and brightest in the field, creating opportunities for Conference attendees to learn about information security's most important issues through interactions with peers, luminaries and emerging and established companies. http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsaconf-dev2dev -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
