On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/07/16 16:58, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>> } else {
> >>> for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_ENGINES; i++) {
> >>> struct drm_i915_gem_request *req;
> >>>
> >>>- req = obj->last_read[i].request;
> >>>+ req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[i]);
> >>> if (req == NULL)
> >>> continue;
> >>>
> >>>- requests[n++] = i915_gem_request_get(req);
> >>>+ requests[n++] = req;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>@@ -2383,25 +2386,27 @@ void i915_vma_move_to_active(struct i915_vma *vma,
> >>> static void
> >>> i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >>> {
> >>>- GEM_BUG_ON(!obj->last_write.request);
> >>>- GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active &
> >>>intel_engine_flag(obj->last_write.request->engine)));
> >>>+ GEM_BUG_ON(!__i915_gem_active_is_busy(&obj->last_write));
> >>>+ GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active &
> >>>intel_engine_flag(i915_gem_active_get_engine(&obj->last_write))));
> >>>
> >>>- i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_write.request, NULL);
> >>>+ i915_gem_active_set(&obj->last_write, NULL);
> >>
> >>Aha!
> >
> >Drat. Didn't think I did that...
> >
> >Oh well, no excuses now but to go back in time and make the change
> >earlier. It does get removed eventually!
>
> Probably not worth it. You can have a special dispensation since I
> am reviewing all the same lines of code patch after patch anyway. :)
Too late, since this patch had to be fixed, I did the earlier fixup as
well.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
