On 13/07/16 16:58, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:40:03PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
[snip]
} else {
for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_ENGINES; i++) {
struct drm_i915_gem_request *req;
- req = obj->last_read[i].request;
+ req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[i]);
if (req == NULL)
continue;
- requests[n++] = i915_gem_request_get(req);
+ requests[n++] = req;
}
}
@@ -2383,25 +2386,27 @@ 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.request);
- GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & intel_engine_flag(obj->last_write.request->engine)));
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!__i915_gem_active_is_busy(&obj->last_write));
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & intel_engine_flag(i915_gem_active_get_engine(&obj->last_write))));
- i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_write.request, NULL);
+ i915_gem_active_set(&obj->last_write, NULL);
Aha!
Drat. Didn't think I did that...
Oh well, no excuses now but to go back in time and make the change
earlier. It does get removed eventually!
Probably not worth it. You can have a special dispensation since I am
reviewing all the same lines of code patch after patch anyway. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
