On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:52:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In preparation to support many distinct timelines, we need to expand the
> activity tracking on the GEM object to handle more than just a request
> per engine. We already use the struct reservation_object on the dma-buf
> to handle
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 14/09/16 18:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:44:04PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>>> On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
-static inline bool
On 14/09/16 18:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:44:04PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
-static inline bool
-i915_gem_object_has_active_engine(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
- int
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:44:04PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > -static inline bool
> > -i915_gem_object_has_active_engine(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > - int engine)
> > -{
> > - return
On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In preparation to support many distinct timelines, we need to expand the
> activity tracking on the GEM object to handle more than just a request
> per engine. We already use the struct reservation_object on the dma-buf
> to handle many fence
In preparation to support many distinct timelines, we need to expand the
activity tracking on the GEM object to handle more than just a request
per engine. We already use the struct reservation_object on the dma-buf
to handle many fence contexts, so integrating that into the GEM object
itself is