Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-19 Thread John Harrison
On 18/06/2015 14:29, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:21 PM, John Harrison wrote: I'm still confused by what you are saying in the above referenced email. Part of it is about the sanity checks failing to handle the wrapping case correctly which has been fixed in the base reserve s

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-18 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:21 PM, John Harrison wrote: > I'm still confused by what you are saying in the above referenced email. > Part of it is about the sanity checks failing to handle the wrapping case > correctly which has been fixed in the base reserve space patch (patch 2 in > the series). T

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-18 Thread John Harrison
On 17/06/2015 16:52, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 04:54:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:27:08PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.c

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 04:54:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:27:08PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > > > > From: John Harri

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-17 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:27:08PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > > > From: John Harrison > > > > > > Now that the *_ring_begin() functions no longer call

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > > From: John Harrison > > > > Now that the *_ring_begin() functions no longer call the request allocation > > code, it is finally safe for the request allo

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-06-17 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > From: John Harrison > > Now that the *_ring_begin() functions no longer call the request allocation > code, it is finally safe for the request allocation code to call > *_ring_begin(). > This is important to guarantee t

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 48/55] drm/i915: Add *_ring_begin() to request allocation

2015-05-29 Thread John . C . Harrison
From: John Harrison Now that the *_ring_begin() functions no longer call the request allocation code, it is finally safe for the request allocation code to call *_ring_begin(). This is important to guarantee that the space reserved for the subsequent i915_add_request() call does actually get rese