On 01/31/2014 01:45 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes: >> This code is strange anyway; the typical paradigm is to check whether >> the batch references the buffer, flush it if so, and then check whether >> it's busy. > > I really like the series. So, thanks! > > As far as your comment here, am I understanding that the (minor, > not-directly-intended) behavioral change you make in the code moves > things closer to the standard paradigm?
Yes. To complete it, we would change the intel_batchbuffer_flush() to: if (drm_intel_bo_references(brw->batch.bo, bo)) intel_batchbuffer_flush(brw); > But is there still more that would move this even closer? Would that be > worth doing here (in a separate commit) now that you've seen it and > noticed? Originally, I believed we always flushed to avoid the cost of the drm_intel_bo_references call...but...I'm less convinced it was intentional, now. This isn't really a common draw-time path, and flushing the batch isn't free either... > I'll leave that for you to decide. In the meantime, for the series: > > Reviewed-by: Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> > > -Carl Thanks, Carl!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev