[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1304121746340.5703@tycho>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To: Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.6.11.1-rt32
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Carsten Emde wrote:
> Steven,
>
> > I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.11.1-rt32 stable release.
> Unfortunately, there is another compile error:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function ‘i915_gem_wait_for_error’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:118:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ‘rt_spin_lock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
> from include/linux/wait.h:24,
> from include/linux/fs.h:396,
> from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but
> argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:120:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ‘rt_spin_unlock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
> from include/linux/wait.h:24,
> from include/linux/fs.h:396,
> from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but
> argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: In function ‘i915_gem_check_wedge’:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1890:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ‘rt_spin_lock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
> from include/linux/wait.h:24,
> from include/linux/fs.h:396,
> from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:21:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but
> argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:1892:3: warning: passing argument 1 of
> ‘rt_spin_unlock’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> In file included from include/linux/spinlock.h:273:0,
> from include/linux/wait.h:24,
> from include/linux/fs.h:396,
> from include/drm/drmP.h:47,
> from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c:28:
> include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:24:24: note: expected ‘struct spinlock_t *’ but
> argument is of type ‘struct raw_spinlock_t *’
>
> I would propose to adopt the mechanism that Sebastian introduced in
> 3.8.4-rt2 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/26/600). The kernel compiles
> and runs without any problem with the below patch on a system that
> requires the i915 driver module.
>
> -Carsten.
>
>
>
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Subject: gpu/i915: don't open code these things
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 10 ++--------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-3.6.11.1-rt32.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ linux-3.6.11.1-rt32/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion;
> - unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> if (!atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged))
> @@ -115,9 +114,7 @@ i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct drm_devic
> * end up waiting upon a subsequent completion event that
> * will never happen.
> */
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> - x->done++;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> + complete(x);
> }
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1884,12 +1881,9 @@ i915_gem_check_wedge(struct drm_i915_pri
> if (atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged)) {
> struct completion *x = &dev_priv->error_completion;
> bool recovery_complete;
> - unsigned long flags;
>
> /* Give the error handler a chance to run. */
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> - recovery_complete = x->done > 0;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&x->wait.lock, flags);
> + recovery_complete = completion_done(x);
>
> /* Non-interruptible callers can't handle -EAGAIN, hence
> return
> * -EIO unconditionally for these. */
>
>
Is there a reason you left off the last hunk?
@@ -4366,7 +4360,7 @@ static bool mutex_is_locked_by(struct mu
if (!mutex_is_locked(mutex))
return false;
-#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES)
+#if (defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES)) &&
!defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE)
return mutex->owner == task;
#else
/* Since UP may be pre-empted, we cannot assume that we own the
lock */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists