Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> writes: > This code is strange anyway; the typical paradigm is to check whether > the batch references the buffer, flush it if so, and then check whether > it's busy.
I really like the series. So, thanks! As far as your comment here, am I understanding that the (minor, not-directly-intended) behavioral change you make in the code moves things closer to the standard paradigm? But is there still more that would move this even closer? Would that be worth doing here (in a separate commit) now that you've seen it and noticed? I'll leave that for you to decide. In the meantime, for the series: Reviewed-by: Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> -Carl -- carl.d.wo...@intel.com
pgp4uGBxWxbae.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
