On ti, 2016-09-20 at 09:29 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Our low-level wait routine has evolved from our generic wait interface > that handled unlocked, RPS boosting, waits with time tracking. If we > push our GEM fence tracking to use reservation_objects (required for > handling multiple timelines), we lose the ability to pass the required > information down to i915_wait_request(). However, if we push the extra > functionality from i915_wait_request() to the individual callsites > (i915_gem_object_wait_rendering and i915_gem_wait_ioctl) that make use > of those extras, we can both simplify our low level wait and prepare for > extending the GEM interface for use of reservation_objects. > > * This causes a temporary regression in the use of wait-ioctl as a busy > query -- it will fail to report immediately, but go into > i915_wait_request() before timing out. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Already provided review comments in the previous series, no changelog and at least the two first were not accounted for. 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
