search for: retake

...an wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. > I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. Christian. > > ~Maarten >

Am 04.08.2014 um 16:40 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: > op 04-08-14 16:37, Christian K?nig schreef: >>> It'a pain to deal with gpu reset. >> Yeah, well that's nothing new. >> >>> I've now tried other solutions but that would mean reverting to the old style during gpu lockup recovery, and only running the delayed work when !lockup. >>> But this

...n_fence_wait_next, etc. >>>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. >>> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? >> Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. > Yeah, except for the locking the ttm delayed workqueue, but that bool should be easy to save/restore. > I think this could work. Actually you c...

...ge_lockres(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, if (!master) res->state |= DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF; - spin_unlock(&res->spinlock); mlog(0, "purging lockres %.*s, master = %d\n", res->lockname.len, res->lockname.name, master); if (!master) { /* drop spinlock... retake below */ + spin_unlock(&res->spinlock); spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock); spin_lock(&res->spinlock); @@ -208,30 +199,34 @@ static int dlm_purge_lockres(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm, mlog(0, "%s:%.*s: dlm_deref_lockres returned %d\n", dlm->name, res->lockn...

The spinlock we use to protect the state of the simulator is sometimes held for a long time (for example, when devices handle requests). This also prevents us from calling functions that might sleep (such as kthread_flush_work() in the next patch), and thus having to release and retake the lock. For these reasons, let's replace the spinlock with a mutex that gives us more flexibility. Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> --- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h | 4 ++-- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_...

>> >> Is the nmi_sanity_check() needed? We shouldn''t lose NMIs: >> even if we take one while doing NMI processing, we sholuld >> retake the NMI as soon as the first one IRETs. >> The nmi_sanity_check() should not be needed if everything is working fine. However I suggest we should keep it for now until we are sure it is safe to remove it. I would also suggest that we print a warning message in the console and/or the...

...at can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. > > The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? ~Maarten

...on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. >> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? > > Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. Yeah, except for the locking the ttm delayed workqueue, but that bool should be easy to save/restore. I think this could work. ~Maarten

[Re-sending to the ext3 list, with minor edits] I'm in the process of fixing errors generated by the Coverity tool on the Linux kernel, and I would like your comment on a set of problems reported in ext3. The main issue reported is not checking the return code of ext3_journal_get_write_access() in various places. I would like to know if there should be error handling in these cases. The

HI, theres a lot of controversy related to this topic, my company is thinking on me to take the astricon bootcamp, but want to know if it is really whorty, 3000 USD is a huge amount of money to spend, plus the hotel, food and transportation, ive already deployed some asterisk?s pbx and have experience with it using analog tdm cards and E1/T1, queues, conference rooms, IVR, ACD, inbound and

Does anyone know of a good web calendar that you can use to display appointments, dates, anniversaries, birthdays, recurring appointments, appointments spanning multiple days? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

Let's move work management inside the vdpa_sim core. This way we can easily change how we manage the works, without having to change the devices each time. Acked-by: Eugenio P??rez Martin <eperezma at redhat.com> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> --- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h | 3 ++-

v2: - rebased on Linus' tree, commit ae3419fbac84 ("vc_screen: don't clobber return value in vcs_read") - removed `struct task_struct *owner` param (unused for now, maybe ?useful to support cgroups) [Jason] - add unbind_mm callback [Jason] - call the new unbind_mm callback during the release [Jason] - avoid to call bind_mm callback after the reset, since the device ?is not

This series adds support for the use of user virtual addresses in the vDPA simulator devices. The main reason for this change is to lift the pinning of all guest memory. Especially with virtio devices implemented in software. The next step would be to generalize the code in vdpa-sim to allow the implementation of in-kernel software devices. Similar to vhost, but using vDPA so we can reuse the