search for: bonghits

...goto err_free; + + ret = drm_atomic_helper_swap_state(state, true); if (ret) { - kfree(c); + commit_destroy(c); goto error; } @@ -241,11 +245,9 @@ int msm_atomic_commit(struct drm_device *dev, * This is the point of no return - everything below never fails except * when the hw goes bonghits. Which means we can commit the new state on * the software side now. + * + * swap driver private state while still holding state_lock */ - - drm_atomic_helper_swap_state(state, true); - - /* swap driver private state while still holding state_lock */ if (to_kms_state(state)->state)...

...everything as needed. > if (ret) { > - kfree(c); > + commit_destroy(c); > goto error; > } > > @@ -241,11 +245,9 @@ int msm_atomic_commit(struct drm_device *dev, > * This is the point of no return - everything below never fails except > * when the hw goes bonghits. Which means we can commit the new state on > * the software side now. > + * > + * swap driver private state while still holding state_lock > */ > - > - drm_atomic_helper_swap_state(state, true); > - > - /* swap driver private state while still holding state_lock */...

...-set) that can be used for some safe subset > of X86_FEATUREs. This could be useful in conjunction with the ongoing > late microcode loading work that Mihai Carabas and others have been > working on. The whole late-microcode loading stuff is crazy already; you're making it take double bonghits. > Also, there are points of similarity with the ongoing static_call work > which does rewriting of indirect calls. Only in so far as that code patching is involved. An analogy would be comparing having a beer with shooting dope. They're both 'drugs'. > The difference here i...

...-set) that can be used for some safe subset > of X86_FEATUREs. This could be useful in conjunction with the ongoing > late microcode loading work that Mihai Carabas and others have been > working on. The whole late-microcode loading stuff is crazy already; you're making it take double bonghits. > Also, there are points of similarity with the ongoing static_call work > which does rewriting of indirect calls. Only in so far as that code patching is involved. An analogy would be comparing having a beer with shooting dope. They're both 'drugs'. > The difference here i...

...for offline CPUs as they come back online with a clean cache. > */ > ret = stop_machine(patch_worker, &text_poke_state, cpu_online_mask); > > + if (nmi) > + unregister_nmi_handler(NMI_LOCAL, "text_poke_nmi"); > + > return ret; > } This is completely bonghits crazy.