[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181211100832.GE14426@ulmo>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:08:32 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>,
Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
Emil Goode <emil.fsw@...de.io>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] host1x: cdma: use completion instead of semaphore
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> In this usage, the two are completely equivalent, but the
> completion documents better what is going on, and we generally
> try to avoid semaphores these days.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.h | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
My understanding is that potentially many userspace processes could be
blocking on this, which I think is the reason for it being a semaphore.
Is the completion going to work for those cases as well?
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists