On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 03:31:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:09PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > > From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > > > > Now that the *_ring_begin() functions no longer call the request allocation > > code, it is finally safe for the request allocation code to call > > *_ring_begin(). > > This is important to guarantee that the space reserved for the subsequent > > i915_add_request() call does actually get reserved. > > > > v2: Renamed functions according to review feedback (Tomas Elf). > > > > For: VIZ-5115 > > Signed-off-by: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > > Still has my question open from the previos round: > > http://mid.gmane.org/20150323091030.GL1349@phenom.ffwll.local > > Note that this isn't all that unlikely with GuC mode since there the > ringbuffer is substantially smaller (due to firmware limitations) than > what we allocate ourselves right now.
Looking at this patch, I am still fundamentally opposed to reserving space for the request. Detecting a request that wraps and cancelling that request (after the appropriate WARN for the overlow) is trivial and such a rare case (as it is a programming error) that it should only be handled in the slow path. -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
