On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 04:50:10PM +0100, Tomas Elf wrote: > On 19/03/2015 12:30, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > >From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > > > >The legacy and LRC code paths have an almost identical procedure for waiting > >for > >space in the ring buffer. They both search for a request in the free list > >that > >will advance the tail to a point where sufficient space is available. They > >then > >wait for that request, retire it and recalculate the free space value. > > > >Unfortunately, a bug in the LRC side meant that the resulting free space > >might > >not be as large as expected and indeed, might not be sufficient. This is > >because > >it was testing against the value of request->tail not request->postfix. > >Whereas, > >when a request is retired, ringbuf->tail is updated to req->postfix not > >req->tail.
req->postfix is garbage, please fix. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
