Am 14.03.2017 um 09:54 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:30:40AM +0800, zhoucm1 wrote:
On 2017年03月14日 10:52, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 14 March 2017 at 12:00, zhoucm1 <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Could you tell me why you create your new one patch? I remember I send out
our the whole implementation, Why not directly review our patches?
This is patch review, I'm not sure what you are expecting in terms of
direct review.
The patches you sent out were reviewed by Christian, he stated he
thinks this should
use sync_file, I was interested to see if this was actually possible,
so I just adapted
the patches to check if it was possible to avoid adding a lot of amd
specific code
for something that isn't required to be. Hence why I've sent this as
an rfc, as I want
to see if others think using sync_file is a good or bad idea. We may
end up going
back to the non-sync_file based patches if this proves to be a bad
idea, so far it
doesn't look like one.
I also reviewed the patches and noted it shouldn't add the wait/signal
interfaces,
that it should use the chunks on command submission, so while I was in
there I re
wrote that as well.
Yeah, then I'm ok with this, just our internal team has used this
implementation, they find some gaps between yours and previous, they could
need to change their's again, they are annoyance for this.
This is why you _must_ get anything you're doing discussed in upstream
first. Your internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff
like that. And yes it takes forever to get formerly proprietary
internal-only teams to understand this, speaking from years of experience
implement a proper upstream-design-first approach to feature development
here at intel.
"internal teams simply do not have design authority on stuff like that"
Can I print that on a t-shirt and start to sell it?
Christian.
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
