On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:51:01PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 17/10/2016 12:31, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:55:54AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> static void
> >>>-i915_gem_object_put_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_ob
On 17/10/2016 12:31, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:55:54AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
static void
-i915_gem_object_put_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+i915_gem_object_put_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
+
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:55:54AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > static void
> >-i915_gem_object_put_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >+i915_gem_object_put_pages_gtt(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> >+ struct sg_t
On 14/10/2016 13:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
The plan is to move obj->pages out from under the struct_mutex into its
own per-object lock. We need to prune any assumption of the struct_mutex
from the get_pages/put_pages backends, and to make it easier we pass
around the sg_table to operate on rather
The plan is to move obj->pages out from under the struct_mutex into its
own per-object lock. We need to prune any assumption of the struct_mutex
from the get_pages/put_pages backends, and to make it easier we pass
around the sg_table to operate on rather than indirectly via the obj.
Signed-off-by:
