Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-05 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 11:12:26AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:42:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 07:59:27AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 17:11,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-04 Thread Matt Roper
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:42:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 07:59:27AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 17:11, Adrian Larumbe > > > wrote: > > > > I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 07:59:27AM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 17:11, Adrian Larumbe > > wrote: > > > I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by > > > both Iris and Vulkan , and

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-04 Thread Matt Roper
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 02:24:07PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 17:11, Adrian Larumbe > wrote: > > I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by > > both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a > > new context, all

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 17:11, Adrian Larumbe wrote: > I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by > both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a > new context, all state set by it will not leak to any other context. > > However the actual

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-04 Thread Adrian Larumbe
Hi, Tvrtko On 03.05.2022 15:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > Hi, > > On 29/04/2022 16:11, Adrian Larumbe wrote: > > I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by > > both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a > > new context, all state set by

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-05-03 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
Hi, On 29/04/2022 16:11, Adrian Larumbe wrote: I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a new context, all state set by it will not leak to any other context. However the actual return value

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-04-29 Thread Adrian Larumbe
I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a new context, all state set by it will not leak to any other context. However the actual return value was a bitmask where every bit stood for an

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Change semantics of context isolation reporting to UM

2022-04-29 Thread Adrian Larumbe
I915_PARAM_HAS_CONTEXT_ISOLATION was already being used as a boolean by both Iris and Vulkan , and stood for the guarantee that, when creating a new context, all state set by it will not leak to any other context. However the actual return value was a bitmask where every bit stood for an