linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] drm/rockchip: Convert to support atomic API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2015 17:31:28 +0800
From:	Mark yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com>
To:	Daniel Stone <daniel@...ishbar.org>
CC:	David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-rockchip <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] drm/rockchip: Convert to support atomic API

On 2015年12月01日 16:18, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 1 December 2015 at 03:26, Mark Yao<mark.yao@...k-chips.com>  wrote:
>> >+static void rockchip_atomic_wait_for_complete(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
>> >+{
>> >+       struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> >+       struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> >+       int i;
>> >+
>> >+       for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> >+               if (!crtc->state->active)
>> >+                       continue;
>> >+
>> >+               WARN_ON(drm_crtc_vblank_get(crtc));
>> >+       }
>> >+
>> >+       for_each_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, crtc_state, i) {
>> >+               if (!crtc->state->active)
>> >+                       continue;
>> >+
>> >+               rockchip_crtc_wait_for_update(crtc);
>> >+       }
> I'd be much more comfortable if this passed in an explicit pointer to
> state, or an address to wait for, rather than have wait_for_complete
> dig out state with no locking. The latter is potentially racy for
> async operations.
>
Hi Daniel
    "if this passed in an explicit pointer to state, or an address to 
wait for", I don't understand, can you point how it work?

-- 
Ｍark Yao


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/