From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: userspace interface to the forcewake
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:05:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1bdc18$k8bua6@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1302810962.2522.5.camel@mattotaupa>
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:56:02 +0200, Paul Menzel <paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 11:13 -0700 schrieb Ben Widawsky:
> > userspace to the forcewake reference count via debugfs.
> >
> > v2:
> > use new spin_locks instead of struct_mutex
>
> in my opinion these remarks should not go into the commit message.
> Reading the commit log the reader is not interested in what patch
> iteration some change was introduced.
In principle, I differ. I appreciate knowing the evolution of a patch as
it winds its way upstream. From those notes, I can infer what questions
were asked, how much attention the patch received, what the major
criticisms were and how they were addressed. Important insights should we
ever need revisit the patch again later.
In an ideal world, each of these would be expounded upon in the changelog
itself so that we had a concise discussion of the what/why/how (and even
who) addressing all the salient background points and debating the wisdom
of the various approaches to fixing the problem, before describing the
ins-and-out of the actual fix implemented.
In this particular case, I agree (and had planned to drop them after
seeing "v2: no change" ;-). After the discussion of why we need a
spin lock in the opening patch, further mentioning of the mutex is then
irrelevant.
But Ben... I seemed to have missed the real reason why we need the
spinlock. You have to remind me or else I will keep whining on like a
broken record. ;-)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-16 7:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-14 18:13 forcewake v4 (now with spinlock) Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 18:13 ` (no subject) Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 18:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: proper use of forcewake Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 18:13 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: reference counted forcewake Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 19:12 ` Ben Widawsky
2011-04-16 6:52 ` Chris Wilson
2011-04-18 17:31 ` Ben Widawsky
2011-04-19 5:48 ` Chris Wilson
2011-04-19 15:12 ` Keith Packard
2011-04-14 18:13 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: userspace interface to the forcewake Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 19:13 ` Ben Widawsky
2011-04-14 19:56 ` Paul Menzel
2011-04-16 7:05 ` Chris Wilson [this message]
2011-04-17 16:55 ` Ben Widawsky
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='1bdc18$k8bua6@fmsmga002.fm.intel.com' \
--to=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=paulepanter@users.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).