On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 01:27:32AM +0100, Bruno Jiménez wrote:
> ---
> src/gallium/drivers/r600/compute_memory_pool.c | 18 +++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/compute_memory_pool.c
> b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/compute_memory_pool.c
> index 5374a48..954c890 100644
> --- a/src/gallium/drivers/r600/compute_memory_pool.c
> +++ b/src/gallium/drivers/r600/compute_memory_pool.c
> @@ -320,21 +320,17 @@ int compute_memory_finalize_pending(struct
> compute_memory_pool* pool,
> int64_t need = item->size_in_dw+2048 -
> (pool->size_in_dw - allocated);
>
> - need += 1024 - (need % 1024);
>
> - if (need > 0) {
> - err = compute_memory_grow_pool(pool,
> - pipe,
> - pool->size_in_dw + need);
> - }
> - else {
> + if (need <= 0) {
It looks like we are changing the behavior of the code here,
because we are no longer doing need += 1024 - (need % 1024) before
checking the value of need.
This code really does need to be cleaned up, but I want to make sure we
aren't changing its behavior, or if we are we have a test case to show
we aren't breaking things.
If you don't think we are changing behavior here, can you explain why
not?
Thanks,
Tom
> need = pool->size_in_dw / 10;
> - need += 1024 - (need % 1024);
> - err = compute_memory_grow_pool(pool,
> - pipe,
> - pool->size_in_dw + need);
> }
>
> + need += 1024 - (need % 1024);
> +
> + err = compute_memory_grow_pool(pool,
> + pipe,
> + pool->size_in_dw + need);
> +
> if(err == -1)
> return -1;
> }
> --
> 1.8.5.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
