> memcmp() does not account for the case where 2 jobs contain exactly the > same perfmons but in a different order. This being said, it's rather > unlikely to happen, so maybe we can accept the perf penalty for that > case.
If you say so! > Yes, all numbers above 0xfff are bifrost GPUs. I'll add a macro. Thank you. > Will copy the errata. I was planning to include annotations for the whole file, but that's low prio. > Actually, that one is from me, hence the 'not sure why' part :). Alright... > Others are using the same "if data passed is smaller than expected > size, unassigned fields are zeroed". That allows us to extend a struct > without breaking the ABI as long as zero is a valid value and does not > change the behavior compared to when the field was not present. > > This is the case here: perfmon_handle_count = 0 means no perfmon > attached to the job, so the driver is acting like it previously was. > > No need to get that part merged in the initial patch series IMO. +1 > Thanks a lot for your reviews. That was pretty damn fast! THanks a lot for your code! \ o / _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
