On Saturday, February 28, 2015 01:19:28 PM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:31:59AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:22:10 AM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > From the comments in the code:
> > >
> > >Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:31:59AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:22:10 AM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > From the comments in the code:
> >
> >Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting MI_BATCHBUFFER_END
> > and
> >sending it off.
> >
> > This fixes a
On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:22:10 AM Ben Widawsky wrote:
> From the comments in the code:
>
>Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting MI_BATCHBUFFER_END and
>sending it off.
>
> This fixes a possible, unlikely infinite recursion in our batch flush path.
> More
> importantl
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:22:10AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> From the comments in the code:
>
>Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting MI_BATCHBUFFER_END and
>sending it off.
>
> This fixes a possible, unlikely infinite recursion in our batch flush path.
> More
> important
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:22:10AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> From the comments in the code:
>
>Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting MI_BATCHBUFFER_END and
>sending it off.
>
> This fixes a possible, unlikely infinite recursion in our batch flush path.
> More
> important
From the comments in the code:
Called from intel_batchbuffer_flush before emitting MI_BATCHBUFFER_END and
sending it off.
This fixes a possible, unlikely infinite recursion in our batch flush path. More
importantly it allows me to add some code here.
The relevant part of the call chain for
