On pe, 2016-10-14 at 13:18 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Our low-level wait routine has evolved from our generic wait interface > that handled unlocked, RPS boosting, waits with time tracking. If we > push our GEM fence tracking to use reservation_objects (required for > handling multiple timelines), we lose the ability to pass the required > information down to i915_wait_request(). However, if we push the extra > functionality from i915_wait_request() to the individual callsites > (i915_gem_object_wait_rendering and i915_gem_wait_ioctl) that make use > of those extras, we can both simplify our low level wait and prepare for > extending the GEM interface for use of reservation_objects. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
No changelog so I assume only whitespace fixes were made, and hopefully not to the worse. So; Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> If you split the i915_gem_wait_for_error removal to own patch with "Fixes:" you can add my R-b there too. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
