Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Another flavour of for_each_engine_masked()

2016-09-01 Thread Dave Gordon
On 01/09/16 15:48, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:17:44PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: This macro was recently updated to skip testing for non-existent or uninteresting engines by using ffs() to directly find the next engine of interest. However, it required the introduction of a ca

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Another flavour of for_each_engine_masked()

2016-09-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:17:44PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: > This macro was recently updated to skip testing for non-existent or > uninteresting engines by using ffs() to directly find the next engine of > interest. However, it required the introduction of a caller-provided > temporary variable,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Another flavour of for_each_engine_masked()

2016-09-01 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
On to, 2016-09-01 at 15:17 +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: > This macro was recently updated to skip testing for non-existent or > uninteresting engines by using ffs() to directly find the next engine of > interest. However, it required the introduction of a caller-provided > temporary variable, which so

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] Another flavour of for_each_engine_masked()

2016-09-01 Thread Dave Gordon
This macro was recently updated to skip testing for non-existent or uninteresting engines by using ffs() to directly find the next engine of interest. However, it required the introduction of a caller-provided temporary variable, which some people regard as inelegant. So, this patch provides anothe