On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 12:49 -0800, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > Good catch of the fence_signalled
> > negated logic.
>
> This was actually mentioned on IRC by Maarten Maathuis (who was
> working on adding pipebuffer support to the nv50 driver).
> Thanks to him :)
Thanks to you both then!
Jose
> + if (flags & PIPE_BUFFER_USAGE_UNSYNCHRONIZED) {
This should be:
if (!(flags & PIPE_BUFFER_USAGE_UNSYNCHRONIZED)) {
Sorry for this.
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Spe
> Good catch of the fence_signalled
> negated logic.
This was actually mentioned on IRC by Maarten Maathuis (who was
working on adding pipebuffer support to the nv50 driver).
Thanks to him :)
--
Download Intel® Parallel S
> I have some doubts about this patch though. It is impossible to satisfy
> both DONTBLOCK and UNSYNCHRONIZED flags simultaneously, so the result of
> specifying both is implementation dependent. Why should UNSYNCHRONIZED
> be favored over DONTBLOCK?
I think that is the correct choice given the cu
Hi Luca,
I've commited your other fixes. Good catch of the fence_signalled
negated logic.
I have some doubts about this patch though. It is impossible to satisfy
both DONTBLOCK and UNSYNCHRONIZED flags simultaneously, so the result of
specifying both is implementation dependent. Why should UNSYNC
Depends on previous signalled value patch.
If the reqiest is unsynchronized, we must not do anything, so do that
check first.
Fixes a bug if DONTBLOCK | UNSYNCHRONIZED.
---
.../auxiliary/pipebuffer/pb_buffer_fenced.c| 34 +--
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 delet
