On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:36 +0200 Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 04:12:41PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > While I think the previous code is correct, it was hard to follow > > and hard to debug. Since we already have a ring abstraction, might > > as well use it to handle the semaphore updates and compares. > > > > I don't expect this code to make semaphores better or worse, but you > > never know... > > I kinda start to like this ;-) As I said, I am biased. To me it is much simpler to understand, but it's definitely more code, and more abstraction. > > While you stare at this, two things I'm pondering: > - Would it make sense to also move the !semaphores ring_sync_to case > into the ringbuffer abstraction? That is an excellent idea. I will work on it with the other recommendations from Keith. > - Can we have a basic testcase for the magic values (and semaphores in > general), please? I really like what you've done with the test case after the fixes discussed on IRC. I will update my commit message to mention it if you manage to push that before I fix up the other things. Ben _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
