Re: [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915: make waiting trace events more useful

On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:12:36 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel <at> ffwll.ch> wrote:
> For consistency I guess we can ditch the dev parameter (and even then, the
> ring would uniquely identify the device). Also, I guess you need to
> explicitly pass in blocking, because mutex_is_locked is rather racy -
> someone else could hold the mutex while we're waiting in a non-blocking
> fashion.

Meh, I suggested the race - I'd rather have a moment of confusion
reading the trace than reading the code in 6 months time.
-Chris

--

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre