On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:18:38 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I took me a while to see the real issues Chris has been complaining about, > > but I > > think the reworked patches take them all into account now. The big change is > > that the wedged check at the beginning of intel_ring_begin stays, but gets > > improved by properly deciding betweein -EIO and -EAGAIN. I've checked all > > the > > callsites and couldn't find any issues. > > > > Comments, flames, reviews and testing reports highly welcome. > > Other than being dense and requiring a big loud comment explaining that > 'EIO without !wedged' means an EIO emanating from another subsystem, > this looks good to me and more importantly survives battery from the > pathological renderer. > > With the spelling mistakes fixed and an improved comment for the > SIGBUS patch, > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Tested-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
I've queued the entire series for next, thanks a lot for the review and testing. -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
