On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:21:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Both busy_ioctl and the new wait_ioct need to do the same dance (or at
> least should). Some slight changes:
> - busy_ioctl now unconditionally checks for olr. Before emitting a
> require flush would have prevent the olr check and hence required a
> second call to the busy ioctl to really emit the request.
> - the timeout wait now also retires request. Not really required for
> abi-reasons, but makes a notch more sense imo.
>
> I've tested this by pimping the i-g-t test some more and also checking
> the polling behviour of the wait_rendering_timeout ioctl versus what
> busy_ioctl returns.
>
> v2: Too many people complained about unplug, new color is
> flush_active.
>
> v3: Kill the comment about the unplug moniker.
>
> v4: s/un-active/inactive/
>
> Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Picked up for dinq with Ben's irc r-b added.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
