On pe, 2016-07-29 at 09:10 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:04:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:40:09AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > >
> > > _is_active() does not really fit to be assigned to _mask. maybe have
> > > object_active_mask(
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:04:48AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:40:09AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > _is_active() does not really fit to be assigned to _mask. maybe have
> > object_active_mask() and then
> >
> > _is_idle/inactive/whatever() { return !object_active_m
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:40:09AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > +static inline void
> > +i915_gem_object_set_active(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int engine)
> > +{
> > + obj->flags |= 1 << (engine + I915_BO_ACTIVE_SHIFT);
>
> BIT(e
On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> +static inline void
> +i915_gem_object_set_active(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int engine)
> +{
> + obj->flags |= 1 << (engine + I915_BO_ACTIVE_SHIFT);
BIT(engine) << I915_BO_ACTIVE_SHIFT would be more readable to my taste,
but I gues
We are motivated to avoid using a bitfield for obj->active for a couple
of reasons. Firstly, we wish to document our lockless read of obj->active
using READ_ONCE inside i915_gem_busy_ioctl() and that requires an
integral type (i.e. not a bitfield). Secondly, gcc produces abysmal code
when presented
