[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191220130025.maasx7xfb7rtadgd@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:00:25 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To: Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@...hat.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"open list:DRM DRIVER FOR QXL VIRTUAL GPU"
<spice-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] [PATCH 4/4] drm/qxl: add drm_driver.release
callback.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 07:09:20AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> >
> > Move final cleanups to qxl_drm_release() callback.
>
> Can you explain in the commit why this is better or preferable?
It gets called when the drm device refcount goes down to zero.
It's needed for a proper cleanup in the correct order.
> > Add drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() call to qxl_pci_remove().
>
> I suppose this is to replace the former manual cleanup calls,
> which were moved to qxl_drm_release, I think this could be
> added in the commit message ("why"), I don't see much value
> in describing "how" this was done.
The call is part of the shutdown sequence for atomic drm drivers
and wasn't present in qxl for some reason.
> > Reorder calls in qxl_device_fini(). Cleaning up gem & ttm
> > might trigger qxl commands, so we should do that before
> > releaseing command rings.
>
> Typo: releaseing -> releasing
> Why not putting this in a separate commit? Was this behaviour
> changed? It does not seem so to me.
Yes, I can make that a separate commit.
No, behavior didn't change. qxl_device_fini() is simply broken
without this.
cheers,
Gerd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists