On 21/02/2018 11:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
How much do I want this uABI to rot away? Say "Never again!" to implicit
aliasing.
In the meantime, we do not need to perform duplicate work on bsd2
machines, as especially we do not know which engine bsd relates to.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
---
lib/ioctl_wrappers.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.c b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.c
index 8748cfcf..868d68f7 100644
--- a/lib/ioctl_wrappers.c
+++ b/lib/ioctl_wrappers.c
@@ -1460,7 +1460,7 @@ bool gem_has_ring(int fd, unsigned ring)
/* silly ABI, the kernel thinks everyone who has BSD also has BSD2 */
if ((ring & ~(3<<13)) == I915_EXEC_BSD) {
What is this testing for? Why not just ring & i915_EXEC_RING_MASK ==
I915_EXEC_BSD? It there are some other bits set it will behave strangely.
- if (ring & (3 << 13) && !gem_has_bsd2(fd))
Disallow explicit selection if no vcs2, makes sense.
+ if (!(ring & (3 << 13)) ^ gem_has_bsd2(fd))
Ugh..
If default BSD (1)
and no BSD2 -> 1 ^ 0 = 1 OK
and BSD2 -> 1 ^ 1 = 1 BAD
If explicit BSD (0)
and no BSD2 -> 0 ^ 0 = 0 BAD
has BSD2 -> 0 ^ 1 = 1 = OK
Or I made a mistake, its possible..
Regards,
Tvrtko
return false;
}
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
