Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-24 09:55:20)
>
> On 23/04/2018 18:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-23 17:52:54)
> >>
> >> On 23/04/2018 14:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
> >>> (fence.context) and so should
On 23/04/2018 18:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-23 17:52:54)
On 23/04/2018 14:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
(fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
install a blocker on all other
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-23 17:52:54)
>
> On 23/04/2018 14:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
> > (fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
> > install a blocker on all other engines, that should not affect
On 23/04/2018 14:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
(fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
install a blocker on all other engines, that should not affect execution
on the local engine.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
On 23/04/18 08:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-04-23 16:37:17)
On 23/04/18 06:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
(fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
install a blocker on all other
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-04-23 16:37:17)
>
>
> On 23/04/18 06:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
> > (fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
> > install a blocker on all other engines, that should not
On 23/04/18 06:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
In the existing ABI, each engine operates its own timeline
(fence.context) and so should execute independently of any other. If we
install a blocker on all other engines, that should not affect execution
on the local engine.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
