On ma, 2016-09-26 at 10:04 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:53:05AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > On ti, 2016-09-20 at 09:30 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > Move the actual emission of the request (the closing breadcrumb) from > > > i915_add_request() to the submit callback. (It can be moved later when > > > required.) This allows us to defer the allocation of the global_seqno > > > from request construction to actual submission, allowing us to emit the > > > requests out of order (wrt to the order of their construction, they > > > still will only be executed one all of their dependencies are resolved > > > including that all earlier requests on their timeline have been > > > submitted.) We have to specialise how we then emit the request in order > > > to write into the preallocated space, rather than at the tail of the > > > ringbuffer (which will have been advanced by the addition of new > > > requests). > > > > No changelog, so assuming *out++ style change is the only one. > > Yeah, it was only stylistic changes, there should have been no > functional changes. I went with *out++ after confirming Tvrtko's report > that gcc is now smart enough to emit the same code as out[0..N] using > *out++. It's a nice to have the changelog for the reviewer no matter if it was stylistic or not :P Anyway, does it somehow get worse if "out" is embedded in the struct and not passed alongside it? 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
