[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161128125024.GZ3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@...ankhorst.nl>
Cc: Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] drm/vgem: Use ww_mutex_(un)lock even with a NULL
context
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 01:42:26PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> > + ww_mutex_lock(&resv->lock.base, NULL);
> Yuck, can we rename base to __NEVER_TOUCH_DIRECTLY_OUTSIDE_LOCKING_CORE?
> It's harder to get them confused like that, even with a null context it's illegal to call mutex_lock/unlock directly.
I think there's a __private sparse annotation that could be used.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists