On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:03:14PM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > On 19/10/2014 15:09, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >We have places that shovel stuff onto the ring without an explicit > >add_request. Or at least we've had, so this needs a full audit, and that > >audit needs to be in the commit message. > Not sure what you mean. There is no functional change here. The old version > pulled the seqno out of the last request entry in the list and compared that > to the hardware seqno value to check for completion. The new version gets > the same request entry and does the same completion test, just in request > parlance. If commands are being dumped on the ring without an request being > added to the request list then the old version would still not have been > checking for them. It would still only look at the last piece of work that > actually did call add_request and see if that has completed or not.
Oh, I've pretty badly mixed stuff up ;-) The issue I'm seeing here though is acessing the request list, from irq context, without any locks. Pre-existing, but still deserves a FIXME comment. Wrt the change itself I'm not sure it's that useful, this is fairly low-level code. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
