On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 06:47:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:59:09AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > In the execbuf code we don't clean up any vmas which ended up not > > getting bound for code simplicity. To make sure that we don't end up > > creating multiple vma for the same vm kill the somewhat dangerous > > vma_create function and inline it into lookup_or_create. > > > > This is just a safety measure to prevent surprises in the future. > > > > Also update the somewhat confused comment in the execbuf code and > > clarify what kind of magic is going on with a new one. > > > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > --- > > > > That's the only concern I could come up with when reading the execbuf > > vma conversion patch. So looks good and I'll slurp it all in as soon > > as some more head scratching is done for the very first patch in this > > series about the vma_unbind fix to only call vma_destroy if the vma > > isn't bound. > > One thing I've noticed but forgot to mention here is that the reloc code > still uses obj_ggtt_size/offset. I guess that will be fixed later on? > -Daniel
Yes. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
