On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ void __i915_add_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request, bool flush_caches)
> &request->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
> if (prev)
> i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence(&request->submit, &prev->submit,
> - &request->submitq);
> + &request->submitq, GFP_NOWAIT);
Wrt commit message, why do we pass both here? If one was to run
statistic analysis, !wq is never true if you pass &foo here.
> @@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ static int i915_sw_fence_wake(wait_queue_t *wq, unsigned mode, int flags, void *
> list_del(&wq->task_list);
> __i915_sw_fence_complete(wq->private, key);
> i915_sw_fence_put(wq->private);
> + if (wq->flags)
> + kfree(wq);
This is confusing without a comment or proper flag #define.
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wq->task_list);
> - wq->flags = 0;
> + wq->flags = pending;
Why not make this look proper by using I915_SW_FENCE_FLAG_FOO name.
> +static inline void i915_sw_fence_wait(struct i915_sw_fence *fence)
> +{
> + wait_event(fence->wait, i915_sw_fence_done(fence));
> +}
> +
This seems to be a lost-in-rebasing hunk.
Above addressed;
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
