On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:42:10PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > It's meant to be an optimisation where we note that even though this might > be a pipelined request, the object does not have any outstanding GPU > fenced access and so we can write the fence register immediately.
Some more thinking cleared stuff up here: last_fenced_seqno can retire much earlier that last_seqno, so we have to ad-hoc track that for efficiency. I still like a obj->last_fenced_seqno = 0; in move_off_active, just to ensure that we don't have terribly old seqnos lying around. > Worth a comment after cleaning it up (see the later patch). So scrap these review comments from me for that patch and perhaps add a small comment instead as to why we have to track this by hand. > -Chris Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx