On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 05:05:44PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 07/07/16 09:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >@@ -2383,10 +2383,10 @@ void i915_vma_move_to_active(struct i915_vma *vma,
> > static void
> > i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> >- GEM_BUG_ON(obj->last_write_req == NULL);
> >- GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & intel_engine_flag(obj->last_write_req->engine)));
> >+ GEM_BUG_ON(!obj->last_write.request);
> >+ GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & intel_engine_flag(obj->last_write.request->engine)));
> >
> >- i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_write_req, NULL);
> >+ i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_write.request, NULL);
>
> Why not use i915_gem_active_set here? It will be strange to have a mix.
That would be strange imo. This is only a staging patch, but setting the
active from inside the retirement handler isn't clean and would look odd
later.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
