On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:54:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:07:35PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:52:40PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: John Harr
On 31/10/14 14:52, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
>> From: John Harrison
>>
>> If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then the error path would try
>> to
>> clean up all rings including those that had not yet been allocate
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 04:07:35PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:52:40PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: John Harrison
> > >
> > > If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then t
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 02:52:40PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: John Harrison
> >
> > If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then the error path would try
> > to
> > clean up all rings including those t
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:00:26PM +, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then the error path would try to
> clean up all rings including those that had not yet been allocated. The ring
> clean up code did a check that the r
From: John Harrison
If a ring failed to initialise for any reason then the error path would try to
clean up all rings including those that had not yet been allocated. The ring
clean up code did a check that the ring was valid before starting its work.
Unfortunately, that was after it had already
