On ke, 2016-07-27 at 18:34 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 01:42:13PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >
> > On ke, 2016-07-27 at 08:07 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > + active = obj->last_read;
> > > > > + active_mask = obj->active;
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_ENGINES; i++) {
> > > > > - request = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[i],
> > > > > - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> > > > > - if (!request)
> > > > > - continue;
> > > > > + active_mask = 1;
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't we have RENDER_RING define for this and other instances?
> > > ?
> > Defining a mask with first bit set is not very informative, is it?
> Just for clarification to the list:
>
> This doesn't correspond to any engine, but that the array of active[] is
> only of size 1. The first branch iterates over
> last_read[I915_NUM_ENGINES] for which we track the current active_mask.
> The second branch iterates over last_write[1] for which we have no
> shortcut, and so assign the mask the value 1.
Right, now got it.
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards, Joonas
> -Chris
>
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
