From: Maarten Lankhorst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/atomic: Acquire connection_mutex lock in drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:16:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
Op 29-03-17 om 16:06 schreef Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:51:08PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 29-03-17 om 15:31 schreef Boris Brezillon:
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:26:45 +0200
>>> Daniel Vetter <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:16:50PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>>> mode_valid() and get_modes() called
>>>>> from drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes()
>>>>> may need to look at connector->state because what a valid mode is may
>>>>> depend on connector properties being set. For example some HDMI modes
>>>>> might be rejected when a connector property forces the connector
>>>>> into DVI mode.
>>>>> Some implementations of detect() already lock all state,
>>>>> so we have to pass an acquire_ctx to them to prevent a deadlock.
>>>>> This means changing the function signature of detect() slightly,
>>>>> and passing the acquire_ctx for locking multiple crtc's.
>>>>> It might be NULL, in which case expensive operations should be avoided.
>>>>> intel_dp.c however ignores the force flag, so still lock
>>>>> connection_mutex there if needed.
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>>> Cc: Boris Brezillon <email@example.com>
>>>>> Cc: Manasi Navare <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> Hm only noticed this now, but mixing up force with the acquire_ctx sounds
>>>> like very bad interface design. Yes, the only user of the new hook works
>>>> like that, but that's really accidental I think. I think just having the
>>>> ctx everywhere (for atomic drivers at least) would be a lot safer. This is
>>>> extremely surprising (and undocumented suprise at that).
>>> Yes, I was about to say the same thing: the interface is not very
>>> clear, and I don't understand why ctx = NULL implies force = false.
>> They're the same thing I fear. I could perhaps call it force_ctx instead,
>> but non-zero ctx implies force, and other way around. Though I guess we could
>> relax it, and have force = true imply ctx, but not the other way around.
>> Would that be ok?
> Why can't we supply a ctx always? I didn't see any reason not to in the
> code ...
Then drm_helper_hpd_irq_event and intel_hpd_irq_event have to do -EDEADLK handling too,
it could be done but nothing would return -EDEADLK so it's unused code.
dri-devel mailing list
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-29 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-29 10:16 [PATCH] drm/atomic: Acquire connection_mutex lock in drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes Maarten Lankhorst
2017-03-29 10:54 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2017-03-29 13:26 ` [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2017-03-29 13:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Boris Brezillon
2017-03-29 13:51 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2017-03-29 14:06 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-03-29 14:16 ` Maarten Lankhorst [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.