On 24/06/2015 13:45, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 01:18:48PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
On 23/06/2015 21:00, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
On 23/06/2015 14:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 01:18:48PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> On 23/06/2015 21:00, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> >>On 23/06/2015 14:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> On 22/
On 23/06/2015 21:00, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
On 23/06/2015 14:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
On 22/06/2015 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 04:43:24PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> On 23/06/2015 14:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> >>On 22/06/2015 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
On 23/06/2015 14:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
On 22/06/2015 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. T
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:38:01PM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
> On 22/06/2015 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> >>From: John Harrison
> >>
> >>It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have
> >
On 22/06/2015 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking o
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:34:12PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have
> been
> send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
> management of that work.
>
>
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call can fail is if it can't write its epilogue
commands to the
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call can fail is if it can't write its epilogue
commands to the
On 17/06/2015 15:04, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:06:34PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking o
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:06:34PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have
> been
> send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
> management of that work.
>
>
On 04/06/2015 13:06, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call ca
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call can fail is if it can't write its epilogue
commands to the
On 29/05/2015 17:43, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call ca
From: John Harrison
It is a bad idea for i915_add_request() to fail. The work will already have been
send to the ring and will be processed, but there will not be any tracking or
management of that work.
The only way the add request call can fail is if it can't write its epilogue
commands to the
16 matches
Mail list logo
