On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:59:41 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Thomas,With the link this time :-).
On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:51:16 +0200
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,I do agree that the current inconsistencies in the naming is
ignoring my r-b on patch 1, I'd like to rethink the current patches in
general.
I think drm_gem_shmem_pin() should become the locked version of _pin(),
so that drm_gem_shmem_object_pin() can call it directly. The existing
_pin_unlocked() would not be needed any longer. Same for the _unpin()
functions. This change would also fix the consistency with the semantics
of the shmem _vmap() functions, which never take reservation locks.
There are only two external callers of drm_gem_shmem_pin(): the test
case and panthor. These assume that drm_gem_shmem_pin() acquires the
reservation lock. The test case should likely call drm_gem_pin()
instead. That would acquire the reservation lock and the test would
validate that shmem's pin helper integrates well into the overall GEM
framework. The way panthor uses drm_gem_shmem_pin() looks wrong to me.
For now, it could receive a wrapper that takes the lock and that's it.
troublesome (sometimes _unlocked, sometimes _locked, with the version
without any suffix meaning either _locked or _unlocked depending on
what the suffixed version does), and that's the very reason I asked
Dmitry to address that in his shrinker series [1]. So, ideally I'd
prefer if patches from Dmitry's series were applied instead of
trying to fix that here (IIRC, we had an ack from Maxime).
[1]https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240105184624.508603-1-dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
Regards,
Boris