On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 01:34:06PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:41:23 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
>
> > + mode != dev_priv->relative_constants_mode) {
> > + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 4)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
>
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:41:23 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> + mode != dev_priv->relative_constants_mode) {
> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 4)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen > 5 &&
> +
Keith, I believe this series belongs in -next. The first two could
actually go in fixes.
Ben
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:41:23 -0700
Ben Widawsky wrote:
> After my refactoring, Chris noticed that we had a bug.
>
> dev_priv keeps track of the current addressing mode that gets set at
> execbuffer tim
After my refactoring, Chris noticed that we had a bug.
dev_priv keeps track of the current addressing mode that gets set at
execbuffer time. Unfortunately the existing code was doing this before
acquiring struct_mutex which leaves a race with another thread also
doing an execbuffer. If that wasn't
