diff options
author | Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com> | 2020-06-23 23:24:00 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com> | 2020-07-17 01:16:31 +0300 |
commit | a7e3ad5fdc51b4795cb935282819996718c0d187 (patch) | |
tree | a8f465b5111f6e836fe7fbd6ce2647f736eb5f46 /CREDITS | |
parent | a7e5e06de22223e0a00f569ea8446243d5f58386 (diff) | |
download | linux-a7e3ad5fdc51b4795cb935282819996718c0d187.tar.xz |
drm/vblank: Use spin_(un)lock_irq() in drm_crtc_vblank_off()
This got me confused for a bit while looking over this code: I had been
planning on adding some blocking function calls into this function, but
seeing the irqsave/irqrestore variants of spin_(un)lock() didn't make it
very clear whether or not that would actually be safe.
So I went ahead and reviewed every single driver in the kernel that uses
this function, and they all fall into three categories:
* Driver probe code
* ->atomic_disable() callbacks
* Legacy modesetting callbacks
All of these will be guaranteed to have IRQs enabled, which means it's
perfectly safe to block here. Just to make things a little less
confusing to others in the future, let's switch over to
spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to make that fact a little more
obvious.
Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200627194657.156514-3-lyude@redhat.com
Diffstat (limited to 'CREDITS')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions